Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

UNEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE.

Mr. MATHERS: I beg to present a Petition which has circulated in a number of industrial districts in Scotland, and is now signed by 224,744 persons, praying for the abolition of the means test and the institution of higher scales of benefit for unemployed people and their dependants.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Fishguard and Goodwick Urban District Council Bill [Lords],

Read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

London County Council (Money) Bill,

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Liverpool Corporation Bill [Lords], (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Thursday.

Sea Fisheries Provisional Order (No. 2) Bill,

Read the Third time, and passed.

SELECTION.

Ordered, That Sir Henry Cautley be discharged from the Committee of Selection and that Captain Gunston be added to the Committee.—[Sir G. Penny.]

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

HOOGHLY JUTE MILLS (STRIKE DISTURBANCES).

Mr. D. GRENFELL: asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he will make a statement relative to the recent strike at the Hooghly Jute Mills at Garden Reach, near Calcutta, when serious injuries were inflicted on some of the strikers by the British members of the mill management staff and a force of Nepalese guards?

Mr. SORENSEN: asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that, during a strike for better working conditions and higher wages in the Hooghly Jute Mills, nearly 1,500 weavers were evicted from their homes by the employers; and what steps it is proposed to take to promote legislation which will prevent employers taking punitive measures of this kind in industrial disputes?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Butler): The employés of the Hooghly Jute Mills came out on


strike on 20th April to protest against an increase in working hours. On 6th May the European manager and his assistant accompanied by a party of Ghurka mill watchmen or guards, went to the coolie lines to communicate with the strikers, not to evict them. The party was attacked and overpowered by a strong force of strikers. The manager and his assistant, who were severely assaulted, were rescued by the timely arrival of a small police picket, armed only with regulation lathies. In the course of restoring order a number of persons on both sides were injured, the total number of strikers injured being 46. The mill was reopened on 21st May and work was proceeding normally by 25th May. Of the total number of 2,300 strikers all have returned to duty except 290. After the occurrence of 6th May the workers evacuated a number of rooms in which new recruits were accommodated. Twenty-five rooms not vacated by strikers were taken for further recruits on 20th May and 60 strikers were evicted. This measure appears not to have been punitive, but an inevitable consequence of the replacement of the strikers by new hands.

Mr. GRENFELL: Can the hon. Gentleman inform the House whether the question of eviction has not been raised, and has not been itself the cause of the trouble that took place?

Mr. BUTLER: Our information goes to show that the employers communicated with the strikers, and that the eviction only took place when new hands were taken to replace those on strike and they had vacated the other dwellings.

Mr. GRENFELL: The hon. Gentleman does not inform the House of the nature of that communication. Is it not possible that the communication was a notice to quit?

Mr. BUTLER: I understand that the original strike arose about a dispute over an increase of working hours, and I presume the eviction of the strikers followed, and this was one of the matters under consideration.

TRADE DISPUTE, LUCKNOW.

Mr. JAGGER: asked the Under-Secretary of State for India (1) on what grounds orders under Section 144 of the Indian Penal Code have been issued by

the Government of the United Provinces or its officials prohibiting meetings of strikers at a certain cotton mill in Luck-now;
(2) whether he is aware that notices have been issued by the Government of the United Provinces prohibiting officers of the Lucknow Textile Workers' Union from going within half-a-mile of the R. G. Mills where members of the trade union went on strike on the 17th May last; and, if so, what action he proposed to take to restore freedom of movement to these trade union officials when going about their ordinary and legitimate business?

Mr. BUTLER: I am asking for a report on the matters raised.

MAULANA INAYATULLA.

Mr. JAGGER: asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that Maulana Inayatulla, a Moslem leader, is now under arrest, and will he state the reason for such arrest?

Mr. BUTLER: I am aware that the Government of the Punjab decided in May to institute proceedings against Maulana Inayatulla under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code for a seditious speech made at the Ahrar Conference at Jaranwala.

Mr. JAGGER: Would it be correct to say that this seditious speech was advocating violence, or merely expressing an opinion?

Mr. BUTLER: I have not a copy of the speech before me, and I would rather see the speech before I replied to that question?

Mr. JAGGER: Would the hon. Gentleman be able to get a copy of the speech and let us see it?

Mr. BUTLER: It is quite likely that I have one available, in which case I will study it more closely before I let the hon. Member have a reply.

Mr. THURTLE: Can the hon. Gentleman say how much longer it will be before the accused is brought for trial?

Mr. BUTLER: I should require notice of that question.

LEGISLATURES (PUBLICATION OF SPEECHES).

Mr. SORENSEN: asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he


is aware that under the Indian penal code and other laws or administrative rules in India proceedings may be taken against a newspaper in regard to publication of speeches made in the legislatures; and whether steps will be taken to amend the law so as to bring the right of the Press to report proceedings of the Indian Legislature into line with British practice in regard to the proceedings of this House?

Mr. BUTLER: Under Sections 67 (7) and 72D (7) of the Government of India Act no person is liable to proceedings in any court by reason of anything contained in any official report of the proceedings of a legislative chamber in India. These provisions are continued in the Government of India Act, 1935. No steps to amend the law in this respect are considered necessary by my Noble Friend.

JAWARHARLAL NEHRU.

Mr. SORENSEN: asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that the District Commissioner of Lyalpur has passed orders suspending the decision of the Lyalpur municipality to present an address to Jawarharlal Nehru; whether he was acting under instructions of the local Government or in accordance with general Government policy; and whether he will take action to prevent officials in India using their authority to slight elected representatives and acknowledged leaders of the Indian people?

Mr. BUTLER: Yes, Sir. In suspending the resolution the Deputy Commissioner acted in pursuance of his statutory powers under Section 232 of the Punjab Municipal Act and not under instructions from the local Government. There is no justification for the suggestion in the last part of the question. I may add that the order gave the committee the opportunity to justify the resolution within 15 days, but instead of attempting to do so, six out of the total committee of 14 defied the order and presented an address purporting to come from the Municipal Committee.

Mr. SORENSEN: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that such action is calculated to improve the relationship of this Government and the people of India?

Mr. BUTLER: The Deputy Commissioner acted within his powers under the

Punjab Municipal Act. The order gave the committee the opportunity to justify the resolution; the committee did not do that.

PRISONER (LAHORE).

Miss WILKINSON: asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he has made any further inquiries regarding the prisoner Parmanand, now in Lahore central gaol; and whether, in view of the long time served and the youth of the prisoner when sentenced, he can now recommend any review of the sentence?

Mr. BUTLER: I have communicated with the Government of India on this case and am awaiting a further report.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY.

REARMAMENT.

Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLE: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the approximate amount spent by Germany upon rearmament during the last 12 months and during the last two years, respectively?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Viscount Cranborne): No official statement of expenditure on armaments has been published by the German Government in respect of the years mentioned, and therefore I cannot make any definite statement in regard thereto.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: May I ask my Noble Friend whether in view of the numerous contradictory statements that are being made on this very important question, the Government cannot have some machinery or adopt some means in order at least to give an approximate estimate of the amount spent by Germany on armaments?

Viscount CRANBORNE: I do not think that it would be appropriate to give in this House an estimate unless we could give the exact figures.

Mr. PALING: Do the Government accept the figures advanced by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill)?

BRITISH NOTE.

Mr. VYVYAN ADAMS: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when a reply to the British note is expected from the German Government?

Viscount CRANBORNE: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my right hon. Friend to a similar question by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, East (Mr. Mander) on 10th June, and to the speech of my right hon. Friend in the Debate of 18th June, to which I am unable to add.

Sir PERCY HARRIS: Is it not customary in a matter of such importance to have a reply within a reasonable period? How many weeks is it expected the Government will have to wait for a reply to their courteous note?

Viscount CRANBORNE: His Majesty's Government have already made it perfectly clear that they desire it at the earliest possible moment.

COLONIAL TERRITORIES.

Mr. MABANE: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any reason to believe that a request may shortly be expected from Germany to reconsider the disposition of the former German colonies made as a result of the Peace Treaty; and whether His Majesty's Government have reached a decision on their policy in the matter?

Viscount CRANBORNE: The answer to the first part of the question is No, Sir. With regard to the second part of the question, I have nothing to add to the statement made by the Prime Minister in the House on 27th April in reply to a question by the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams).

Mr. SANDYS: Is the Noble Lord aware that the German Government have taken over the control of colonial propaganda and also that German propaganda is being organised in Tanganyika, and, if so, can any reasonable person escape the conclusion that Germany intends to ask for the return of colonial territories?

Viscount CRANBORNE: That makes no difference to the Prime Minister's declaration, which was perfectly clear.

MAJOR GRENFELL.

Miss WILKINSON: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has made any inquiries from the German authorities regarding their treatment of Major Grenfell, late of the Royal Army Medical Corps, when visiting Hamburg last week for the trial of Edgar Andre; and whether he is aware that this

treatment followed a statement from an official of the ministry of justice that there was no objection to his being present at the trial?

Viscount CRANBORNE: I have no information on this matter beyond what has appeared in the Press.

Miss WILKINSON: Will the Noble Lord make inquiries about it, because what appears in the Press is sufficient to justify some action by His Majesty's Government?

Viscount CRANBORNE: If the gentleman in question or his representative cares to make a request, I will certainly consider calling for a report.

Mr. COCKS: What about the British Government? We are not Nicaragua.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA.

SIR F. LEITH-ROSS (VISIT TO TOKYO).

Mr. MOREING: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) whether Sir Frederick Leith-Ross, on his recent visit to Tokyo, took advantage of the opportunity to discuss with the Japanese Government their political and military intentions in North China;
(2) whether Sir Frederick Leith-Ross has reported on his recent visit to Tokyo and to what effect; and, in particular, whether he has made any suggestions for the cessation of smuggling into North China by Japanese and Korean subjects;
(3) whether Sir Frederick Leith-Ross, on the occasion of his recent visit to Tokyo, had the advantage of a discussion with the Japanese military authorities as well as with the Foreign Office; and, if so, whether he drew attention to the serious effect of Japanese restrictions in North China upon the activities of Chinese customs officials in their efforts to suppress smuggling?

Viscount CRANBORNE: Reports have been received of the interviews which Sir Frederick Leith-Ross during his visit had with leading personalities in the Japanese Government and Army. Sir Frederick Leith-Ross was, I understand, accorded a very friendly reception and was able frankly to discuss various problems of the moment, including the smuggling in Northern China, and


Japanese policy in that region. In the course of these discussions Sir Frederick Leith-Ross urged that effective power to exercise their functions should be restored to the Customs authorities in Northern China.

SIR ERIC TEICHMAN'S REPORT.

Captain ALAN GRAHAM: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can yet indicate the approximate date of the publication of Sir Eric Teichman's Report?

Viscount CRANBORNE: After careful consideration my right hon. Friend has come to the decision that it would not be in the public interest to publish this report.

SMUGGLING.

Mr. MORGAN: asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department (1) whether the effects of smuggling in North China have had any effect on the market for British goods in the Yangtze valley;
(2) what classes of goods are at present being smuggled into North China; to what extent goods of the type imported from this country are affected; and whether, in view of the success hitherto attending the efforts of the smugglers, he anticipates an increase of smuggled goods of Japanese origin of the kind usually imported from Great Britain?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Dr. Burgin): I understand that the principal categories of goods now being smuggled into North China are rayon yarn, sugar and kerosene, which are not imported in large quantities from the United Kingdom. The issue raised in the last part of Question No. 33 is somewhat hypothetical; but there can be little doubt that the smuggling, if allowed to continue, will have increasingly prejudicial consequences for legitimate trade of all kinds.

Mr. MORGAN: (for Mr. CHORLTON) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) the amount of the drop in Customs revenue at the port of Tientsin during the present year owing to the loss of duty on goods smuggled into China in that area;
(2) the amount by which the Chinese Customs revenue, upon which British loans are secured, was diminished in the first five months of this year by loss of duty on goods smuggled into North China, and the proportion of such loss to the total revenue of the Chinese Customs for the period?

Viscount CRANBORNE: I am unable to give the exact figures for which my hon. Friend has asked. It has, however, been estimated that the goods smuggled in a recent period of three weeks would have been liable for duty at a rate of 2,000,000 Chinese dollars a week. This figure does not, however, necessarily represent the actual loss. Against it would have to be set off the extent to which the smuggled goods represent imports additional to the normal owing to their lower price.

PASSPORTS (ENTERTAINMENT ARTISTES).

Mr. DAY: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the number of passports granted by Great Britain for the 12 months ended to the last convenient date to ladies employed in the theatrical and vaudeville professions for the purpose of accepting engagements abroad; and what investigations are made as to the bona fides of their employment before these passports are issued?

Viscount CRANBORNE: I regret that the information desired in the first part of the hon. Member's question, which would entail the examination of some 200,000 applications, is not available. As regards the second part, in all cases in which applicants for passports declare the purpose of their journey to be that of taking up theatrical employment special precautions are taken as regards the conditions and bona fides of the employment and the contracts are referred to one of the recognised theatrical associations for examination. In the few cases which occur in which the association consulted find themselves unable to make a recommendation, further inquiries are made either through the police authorities in this country or from the British Consular Representative at the place to which the applicant proposes to travel. Juvenile


artistes under the age of 18 are also required to produce a magistrate's licence to perform abroad.

Mr. DAY: Is the Minister aware that lately several of these artistes have been lured out to lucrative engagements and that when they arrived at their destination they have found that there were no engagements available and they were offered positions in houses of ill-repute?

Viscount CRANBORNE: I understand that the utmost care is taken, and if the hon. Member has any specific cases that he wants to bring forward and he will let me have particulars, I will go into them.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

EMPEROR OF ABYSSINIA.

Mr. A. HENDERSON: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government will recommend the League of Nations Assembly to allow the Emperor of Abyssinia, if he so desires or, if not, his accredited representative, to address the Assembly or otherwise participate in its forthcoming deliberations?

Viscount CRANBORNE: The Ethiopian Government were represented at the Council meeting on 26th June, and I understand that they will be similarly represented at the Assembly. There is therefore no necessity for His Majesty's Government to make any recommendation to that effect.

Mr. HENDERSON: In the event of the Emperor desiring to address the Assembly, would the Government be in favour of allowing him to do so, so as to give him an opportunity of speaking in opposition to the policy of the British Government on the ending of sanctions, and explaining how the British Government are favouring a policy which is betraying the League of Nations?

Mr. SPEAKER: That question is purely hypothetical.

SANCTIONS.

Mr. A. HENDERSON: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the ending of sanctions will affect the assurances of military support given

to His Majesty's Government by France, Jugoslavia, Greece and Turkey, in the event of special measures of a military character being aimed by Italy at this country?

Viscount CRANBORNE: I can make no statement on this subject as the Assembly has not yet met, and the decisions regarding the future of sanctions have not yet been taken.

Mr. HENDERSON: Can the Under-Secretary say why it is desirable to enter into these agreements for military assistance on the basis of mutual aid in the case of the Mediterranean Powers under Article 16 of the Covenant, and yet apparently it is not desirable to do so in the case of Abyssinia itself?

Viscount CRANBORNE: The declaration the Secretary of State made was perfectly clear. He said that he did not wish people to suffer for the support they had given to the Covenant in this case.

Mr. THORNE: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the total strength of the armies, navies and air forces of all the countries, members of the League of Nations, who agreed to apply sanctions against Italy, including the United Kingdom; and the strength of the Italian Navy, Army and Air Force, and the total strength of the navies, armies and air forces of the countries, members of the League of Nations, who agreed not to apply sanctions against Italy, and, in each case, whether he can give the name of the country?

Viscount CRANBORNE: I will endeavour to compile such information on the subject as is available from published sources, and will communicate it to the hon. Member.

Mr. EMMOTT: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs what measures were taken to secure agreement upon identical policy between His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom and His Majesty's Government in the Dominions, before His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom announced their decision to advocate the termination of sanctions against Italy; and whether he has received any statement of the views of His Majesty's Government in the Dominions upon this decision?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Marquess of Hartington): As regards the first part of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by the Prime Minister on 18th June to a question by the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander). As regards the second part of the question, the attitude of several of the Dominion Governments has already been made clear. The Prime Minister and the Home Secretary referred to the position in the Debate on 23rd June.

Mr. EMMOTT: Is the House to understand that my noble Friend can give no more specific answer to the latter part of my question, which is whether he has received a statement of these views? I know that there has been a statement of views, but I am asking whether those views have been directly addressed to His Majesty's Government in this country?

Marquess of HARTINGTON: I think if my hon. Friend will look at the pages of the OFFICIAL REPORT to which I have referred, he will find that matter dealt with there.

Mr. SANDYS: Is there any mention of South Africa in the pages referred to by my noble Friend?

Marquess of HARTINGTON: No, Sir.

Mr. SANDYS: May we have the views of South Africa stated by my noble Friend?

Marquess of HARTINGTON: It is the business of the South African Government to express the views of South Africa.

Mr. SANDYS: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs, in view of the fact that it was not found possible to consult the Dominion Governments in regard to the Hoare-Laval proposals or to obtain general agreement as to the desirability or not of lifting sanctions, and in view of the importance of the maintenance of all His Majesty's Governments of a common attitude towards foreign affairs, whether he will approach the Dominion Governments with the object of devising some more effective machinery for inter-Imperial consultation?

Marquess of HARTINGTON: The principles governing the system of consultation with Dominion Governments in

relation to foreign affairs are summarised fully in the report of the proceedings of the Imperial Conference of 1930. Those principles are in full operation, and I have no reason to think that there is any desire on the part of any Dominion Government to alter them.

Mr. SANDYS: Does my noble Friend recognise that the pursuit of divergent and even conflicting policies by different Governments in the Empire is liable to undermine Imperial unity; and will he, therefore, consider approaching the Dominions again on this vital question?

Mr. COCKS: Is the noble Lord aware that the Dominion Governments have a complete contempt for the present Administration?

DANZIG.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make any report on the decisions taken on the question of Danzig at the May meeting of the Council of the League of Nations; and, in particular, whether any steps have been taken to ensure that the decree laws which have been passed will be strictly carried out?

Viscount CRANBORNE: The only decision taken on the question of Danzig at the May meeting of the Council was the decision to extend the appointment of Mr. Lester as High Commissioner for a further year dating from 1st January, 1937. As regards the second part of the question, I presume that the hon. Member has in mind the decree laws published by the Senate in fulfilment of the recommendations made by the Council of the League at its January meeting. There has been no report from the League High Commissioner to show that the decrees are not being observed, and Mr. Lester can be relied upon to report to the Council if he considers that they are not being carried out.

Mr. DAVIES: Has the Noble Lord seen reports to the effect that some of the National Socialist authorities in Germany have demanded the withdrawal of Mr. Lester from Danzig, and, if so, can he give an assurance that the British Government will not be a party to acceding to such a demand?

Viscount CRANBORNE: I think we had better wait until Mr. Lester reports.

PEACE TREATIES.

Mr. MABANE: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the fact that the pacification of Europe depends largely on the effective application of Article XIX of the Covenant of the League of Nations, he will, in order to prevent an attempt to revise the Peace Treaties of 1919 and 1920 by force, propose to the Assembly of the League that a general review of those treaties should be undertaken by the League at once as a matter of urgency, and that interested non-League Powers be invited to collaborate in the task?

Viscount CRANBORNE: His Majesty's Government, as has previously been stated, hold the view that the existing political and territorial status could only be properly modified by agreement and negotiation. I can assure my hon. Friend that His Majesty's Government have this principle constantly in mind.

Mr. MABANE: Can the Noble Lord indicate whether the Government intend to initiate discussion on these important points?

Viscount CRANBORNE: I can assure my hon. Friend that the Government have these things constantly in mind. I cannot say anything more now.

DARDANELLES.

Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what concessions, territorial and otherwise, were granted to Turkey in the Treaty of Lausanne in return for the demilitarisation of the Dardanelles; and whether His Majesty's Government will ask for appropriate adjustments in the event of the remilitarisation of the Dardanelles being agreed to?

Viscount CRANBORNE: The only concession, if it can be so called, which was granted to Turkey in return for the demilitarisation of the Straits was the guarantee of protection contained in Article 18 of the Straits Convention. It is intended that this Article shall lapse if remilitarisation is agreed to.

RUSSIA.

Mr. MARCUS SAMUEL: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs

whether, now that the newly promulgated Soviet constitution guarantees the right to hold political demonstrations, freedom of speech and of the Press, and security from arbitrary arrest, he will inquire whether British nationals desirous of founding capitalist Press organs in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics will be permitted to do so and to enter and leave the country without restriction?

Viscount CRANBORNE: My hon. Friend is in error in assuming that a new Soviet constitution has been promulgated. The text which he doubtless has in mind is that of draft proposals for consideration by the All-Union Congress of Soviets on 25th November next. These draft proposals guarantee the rights which he mentions but also provide that the Communist party remains the sole legal party in the State.

NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

Captain PLUGGE: asked the Minister of Pensions how many vacant beds there are in any of the hospitals carried on by his Department; and whether, where such vacancies exist, he will arrange to give more extended treatment to men whose disabilities are unrecognised for pension purposes but who do receive treatment by his Department?

The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Mr. R. S. Hudson): A margin of vacant accommodation is kept by the Ministry in its own hospitals, which amounted on an average during the past year to 275 beds, in order to allow for emergencies. All patients, whether or not in receipt of pension, are retained in Ministry hospitals for as long as each case requires, the average stay being about 12 weeks. In the circumstances there would be no advantage in prolonging the stay of patients beyond the requirements of their treatment.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

IRISH FREE STATE (CIDER DUTY).

Major DORMAN-SMITH: asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether his attention has been directed to the increased duty on cider imposed by the Irish Free State; whether he has any information as to the effect


of this increase upon the cider-making industry in this country; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?

Dr. BURGIN: Yes, Sir; while I appreciate that the increased duty is likely to have a detrimental effect on the trade in cider to the Irish Free State, which amounted to £12,000 in 1934, I do not think the matter is one in which any useful action can be taken at the present time.

ARGENTINA.

Mr. BOOTHBY: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can make any statement regarding the progress of the negotiations for a trade agreement between this country and the Argentine Republic?

Dr. BURGIN: My right hon. Friend is not in a position to make a statement at present.

Captain DOWER: Can my right hon. Friend put forward any hope as to when he will be in a position to make a statement?

Dr. BURGIN: I think it is a little unwise when negotiations are pending between two Governments to make any estimates as to the length of time one or other may take to answer representations.

Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: Is it proposed to give notice on 7th July in order that our hands may be free?

Dr. BURGIN: Perhaps my hon. Friend will put that question down.

Mr. LEVY: Does my hon. Friend propose to deal with the Most-Favoured-Nation Clause before these agreements are ratified?

SANCTIONS (COMPENSATION).

Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in the light of the new circumstances, His Majesty's Government are prepared to consider giving some assistance to British subjects and firms which have suffered serious losses through the operation of sanctions; and whether the Government are prepared to appoint a committee to inquire into the extent of these losses?

Dr. BURGIN: In reply to the first part of the question, I regret that I cannot add anything to the answer on this subject which was given to the hon. Member

for Lincoln (Mr. Liddall) on 12th May. In the circumstances indicated in that answer I do not think that the appointment of a committee as suggested by my hon. Friend would serve any useful purpose.

Mr. PETHERICK: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that these firms have suffered seriously?

Dr. BURGIN: Yes, Sir.

Lieut. - Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Will my hon. Friend remember that agriculture has also suffered as a result of sanctions?

SEA FISH COMMISSION.

Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is now in a position to announce the decision of the Government in respect of the recommendations of the Sea Fish Commission?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Elliot): No, Sir. Discussions are proceeding with certain of the interests affected by the Commission's recommendations and will shortly be opened with others. Some little time must, therefore, necessarily elapse before I am in a position to make an announcement as to the Government's intentions regarding the report.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Does my right hon. Friend expect to be able to make an announcement before the Summer Recess?

Mr. ELLIOT: I am afraid I cannot say that. The negotiations are proceeding.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

MILK PRODUCTS (IMPORTS).

Mr. DREWE: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that the price of milk received by the majority of producers in the Far Western region during the month of May amounted to 5½d. per gallon; and whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce a levy subsidy on imported dairy products to ensure that the producers of milk shall get a fair price for their product?

Brigadier - General CLIFTON BROWN: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the increasing amounts of inter-regional compensation


levy that milk producers are having to pay into the pool, he will take steps to impose a levy on imported manufactured milk products to enable the board to pay a fair price to the producers of liquid milk in this country?

Mr. ELLIOT: I am aware that the net receipt per gallon for May of the non-accredited long distance depot suppliers in the Far Western region was a little over 5½d. I am also fully alive to the position arising from the present prices of milk for manufacture. I am sending my hon. Friend and my hon. and gallant Friend a copy of the reply I gave on 19th May to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Sir R. Gower) in which I said that a general indication of the policy of the Government in regard to imports of milk products was given in a statement made on 25th July last. The present position of the home milk industry in relation to imports of milk products is safeguarded until October, 1937, by the Milk Act, 1934, and the Milk (Extension of Temporary Provisions) Act, 1936, which provide, inter alia, for Exchequer advances to improve the price of milk used for manufacture. The dairy produce situation will be reviewed and the Government's long-term policy determined before that date.

Brigadier-General BROWN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the levy of £1 an acre on a 400 acre farm is £400 a year, and that unless something is done soon we cannot go on producing milk in these circumstances?

Mr. ELLIOT: These are figures given from non-accredited producers. It must be remembered that they include long distance haulage charges, a charge in this case of nearly 3d. for transport. It would not be fair to compare these with ordinary dairy figures.

Mr. PALING: As the working classes drink far less milk than is good for them, on account of their poverty, would it not be better for the Government to get it for them in another way instead of taxing foreign milk?

Mr. ELLIOT: It is in order to get the milk to consumers in London and elsewhere that these high transport charges are incurred, of which the producers complain.

MILK REORGANISATION COMMISSION (REPORT).

Mr. TREE: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has any information as to when the Milk Reorganisation Commission is going to issue its report and recommendations?

Mr. ELLIOT: I understand that the Milk Reorganisation Commission hope to be in a position to complete and present their report within the next two to three months.

Mr. TREE: In view of the serious position will the right hon. Gentleman do everything he can to expedite the issue of the report at the earliest possible moment?

Mr. ELLIOT: I understand that the Milk Board are bringing forward certain amendments which will be presented in advance of the report of the Commission.

Mr. GEORGE GRIFFITHS: Will it be possible to ask the Milk Board to recommend that everybody in the Army, the Navy and the Air Force should have butter instead of margarine?

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

AUTOMATIC TELEPHONE DIALS.

Mr. AMMON: asked the Postmaster-General whether, for convenience during the night hours and for elderly people, he will consider supplying luminous lettering on automatic telephone dials?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Major Tryon): The use of luminous paint on telephone dials has been tried but has not proved satisfactory. A special dial ring with enlarged lettering has been designed and is available for subscribers who experience difficulty in reading the ordinary dial.

ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT (OVERTIME).

Mr. R. C. MORRISON: asked the Postmaster-General how many employés of the Post Office engineering department are working systematic overtime; and what steps are being taken to obviate this?

Major TRYON: I am not aware that systematic overtime is being worked in the Post Office engineering department. Its operations are expanding but every


endeavour is made to ensure that the provision of staff keeps pace with such expansion, and the personnel has been increased from about 30,000 to about 38,000 in the past two years. It is not, of course, practicable to eliminate overtime of an emergency character or where the circumstances are otherwise exceptional, but if the hon. Member knows of any instance in which the attendance is regarded as excessive and will let me have particulars, I will go further into the matter.

TELEPHONE SERVICE, BELFAST (OVERTIME).

Mr. VIANT: asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the staff at Telephone House, Belfast, have been subjected to what they term overwork in the form of systematic overtime which has been the practice for a considerable time past; and will he issue orders that such a policy must cease and thereby give employment to a number who would otherwise be unemployed?

Major TRYON: There has been heavy pressure on the clerical staff at Telephone House, Belfast, for some time past, due in the main to the conversion of the Belfast telephone service to automatic working. The situation was rendered more difficult on the engineering side by the urgent necessity for repairing the extensive damage to plant caused by the heavy gales which were experienced early this year in Northern Ireland, and on the commercial side by an alteration in the method of dealing with subscribers' accounts. Such help as is possible has been given and increases in the establishment have been authorised, with the result that there has been within the last few months a steady reduction of overtime. I hope that that reduction will become more marked as the newly recruited staff gain in experience.

Mr. VIANT: Is the Postmaster-General sure that this overtime has not extended for over two years?

Major TRYON: The position now is very much better than it was a year ago, and I am glad to say that at the present moment it shows further signs of improvement.

ROYAL PARKS (RAILINGS).

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: asked the Minister of Pensions, as representing the

First Commissioner of Works, whether his attention has been called to the number of accidents caused to pedestrians, especially children and women, by falling over the low iron railings, 12 inches to 15 inches in height, bordering certain of the paths in Hyde Park and Kensington Gardens; whether he is aware that these rails are in a bad state of repair and rusty, serve no useful purpose, and involve considerable expense in painting and repair, as well as being a danger to the public; and whether he will give directions for any such railings which have not already been removed to be removed forthwith?

Mr. R. S. HUDSON: (for the First Commissioner of Works): I am informed that it has been the policy of the Department to remove these railings where it is considered desirable to do so, and I will report to my Noble Friend the suggestion made by the hon. Member, so that on his return to this country he may consider the possibilities of further removal.

Sir W. DAVISON: Is the hon. Member aware that these dwarf railings are at different heights at different places, and that a step which will clear them at one spot will catch a person's toe at another? Is he also aware that owing to a serious accident in the Green Park some time ago the central railings going through the park were removed without any detriment to the paths?

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: Is the hon. Member aware that these railings were reduced by the right hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) with general approval, and will he not convey to his right hon. Friend that this might be done again?

MINISTERS' SALARIES.

Mr. BOOTHBY: asked the Prime Minister whether the Government propose to introduce legislation to put Ministerial salaries upon a more equitable basis?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Simon): I can at present add nothing to the answer which the Prime Minister gave on 18th May in reply to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for West Leeds (Mr. V. Adams).

Mr. BOOTHBY: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that some attention might be paid to the expressed views of this House?

Sir J. SIMON: It must not be assumed that because no answer is given to-day that no attention is being paid to the matter.

Mr. COCKS: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the saving to the Treasury which would result from the introduction of a system of payment by results?

FOREIGN POLICY (PRIVATE MEMBERS' SPEECHES).

Mr. V. ADAMS: asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that during the Debate in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 23rd June there was only time for speeches by eight Members who were neither Ministers nor former Ministers; and whether, in view of the inadequacy of the time thus at the disposal of private Members, he will provide an early opportunity for further discussion of the international situation?

Sir J. SIMON: My hon. Friend's statistics are correct. I would remind him, however, that there have already been several Debates on foreign policy this Session, and opportunities still remain for the subject to be debated on allotted Supply days and on the Appropriation Bill.

Mr. ADAMS: In view of the magnitude of the issues discussed last Tuesday, does the Home Secretary think that the time was really adequate, when there were literally hundreds of hon. Members in all sections of the House who wished to speak?

Sir J. SIMON: Everybody recognises the importance of the subject, and also the fact that many hon. Members would like to take part in the Debate. Of course we must not in this case regard speeches as being paid by time.

ITALY AND ABYSSINIA.

Mr. MABANE: asked the Prime Minister whether he is prepared to tell the House that it is the intention of the Government that no arms shall be allowed to get through to the Abyssinians?

Sir J. SIMON: I would refer my hon. Friend to the Prime Minister's statement on this subject in the course of last Tuesday's Debate, to which I have nothing to add.

Mr. MABANE: Has the attention of my right hon. Friend been drawn to the statement made in the country to the effect that the House of Commons was told that no arms were allowed to get through to Abyssinia, and will he agree that no such statement was made in the House of Commons by the Prime Minister?

Sir J. SIMON: The statement is certainly not correct: it is not what the Prime Minister said.

Miss RATHBONE: But is not a refusal to allow arms to get through to Abyssinia through Somaliland tantamount to a refusal to supply arms to the Abyssinians?

ARMAMENT CONTRACTS.

Mr. KENNEDY: asked the Prime Minister what steps, if any, the Government will take, in the absence of competitive tenders, to prevent excessive profiteering by private firms in connection with forthcoming armaments production; and whether he will consider the desirability of securing national control of the sources of necessary raw material and the industries concerned?

Sir J. SIMON: As regards the first part of the question, I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence in reply to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Emmott) on Tuesday last; as regards the last part of the question further measures of control are not in our opinion at present called for.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether recent contract prices compare favourably or un-favourably with the prices which were paid during the War?

Sir J. SIMON: Obviously, I cannot answer that as a supplementary question. If the hon. Member desires an answer, perhaps he will put the question on the Order Paper.

Oral Answers to Questions — GREAT BRITAIN AND FRANCE.

MR. DUFF COOPER'S SPEECH.

Mr. THURTLE: asked the Prime Minister whether he was aware of the terms of the speech delivered by the Secretary of State for War in Paris on 24th June before the delivery of the speech; and whether the policy of an alliance with France, advocated in that speech, represents the present policy of His Majesty's Government?

Mr. SORENSEN: asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the speech in Paris by the Secretary of State for War, in which he declared we entered the Great War because our vital interests were at stake and that the future responsibility of saving civilisation rested on the collaboration of France and Great Britain; and whether that speech represents the policy of His Majesty's Government?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: asked the Prime Minister whether the speech by the Secretary of State for War in Paris on 24th June represents the policy of His Majesty's Government?

Mr. SANDYS: asked the Prime Minister whether the speech made by the Secretary of State for War in Paris on 24th June, in which he stated that France's frontiers are our frontiers, represents the policy of His Majesty's Government?

Sir J. SIMON: My right hon. Friend was addressing a society which exists for the purpose of promoting friendly relations between France and Great Britain, and his remarks were, of course, not a declaration of policy but a speech devoted to stressing the elements common to the people of both countries. The place for a declaration of Government policy is the House of Commons, and that policy was fully stated by the Foreign Secretary and by the Prime Minister in the course of the Debates in this House on 18th June and 23rd June respectively. The observations of my right hon. Friend were not designed to be in conflict with their declarations at all. In fairness to my right hon. Friend I should add that he submitted a draft of his speech to the Foreign Office and subsequently altered it in certain respects in response to their suggestions.

I understand that in its final form the speech did not come under the personal notice of the Foreign Secretary, but this was due to the pressure of his other engagements, and was in no way intentional.

Mr. THURTLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these pronouncements by individual Cabinet Ministers on matters of grave policy, which conflict with the declared policy of the Government as a whole, are causing great disquiet in the country, and will he ask the Prime Minister at least to see that he gets discipline in his Cabinet?

Sir ARNOLD WILSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman also aware that it is causing real confusion and alarm among supporters of the National Government?

Sir J. SIMON: I think that if the hon. Member will look at the speech as it is recorded in the French papers it will considerably relieve him. I do not in the least admit that his remarks call for these strictures.

Mr. ATTLEE: Has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been called to the comments in the French Press in which it is not treated as the speech of a private individual but as representing the policy of the Government?

Sir J. SIMON: I think the answer I have given will show quite plainly that that is not so. It was not a declaration of policy. It is not possible to control newspapers in Paris or in London, and the House should take that into account.

Major STOURTON: Is it not the fact that the speech of the Secretary of State for War would have the effect of prejudicing negotiations with Germany?

Mr. ATTLEE: In view of the reply, I will ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House to call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance, that is, the statements on foreign policy made by Ministers of the Crown.

MINISTERS' SPEECHES.

Mr. BARNES: asked the Prime Minister whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for War informed him beforehand of their intention to make pronouncements on sanctions and frontiers?

Sir J. SIMON: The answer is in the negative.

Mr. BARNES: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that disloyalty to colleagues is a characteristic of the National Government?

Sir J. SIMON: I do not.

TITHE-PAYERS (REPRESENTA TIONS).

Mr. THORNE: asked the Prime Minister whether he has considered the copy sent to him of the resolution passed at the tithe-payer's demonstration held last week and the request made to him to receive a deputation representative of those who took part in the demonstration; whether he proposes to receive the deputation; and, if not, will he state the reason why?

Sir J. SIMON: The Prime Minister received a request on the evening of 23rd June from the chairman of the demonstration in question, asking him to receive a deputation on the following day. It was explained to the chairman that the whole question of tithe rentcharge was exhaustively considered by the Royal Commission which heard
evidence from those organisations which the proposed deputation represented. Moreover, subsequent to the publication of the report of the Royal Commission, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture received deputations from various bodies representing tithe-payers, and thus had an opportunity of hearing their views prior to the introduction of legislation. These representations were given full consideration by the Government, and, in the circumstances, the Prime Minister was of opinion that no useful purpose would be served by receiving the deputation in question.

HOUSE OF COMMONS (VISITORS' ACCOMMODATION).

Captain McEWEN: asked the Minister of Pensions, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether he has considered the possibility of providing more adequate accommodation for members of the Diplomatic Corps who wish to listen to Debates in this House; and whether he can make a statement on the subject?

Mr. R. S. HUDSON: (for the First Commissioner of Works): Yes, Sir. I understand that with the consent of all parties in the House Mr. Speaker has agreed that additional accommodation shall be provided for members of the Diplomatic Corps, and that the present Special Gallery shall be placed at their disposal provided it is occupied by 4 p.m. Other accommodation will be found for those who would have been accommodated in the present Special Gallery.

Sir P. HARRIS: Is not the arrangement that if the Special Gallery is not required before four o'clock, it will then be available for Members' friends?

Mr. HUDSON: The exact, form in which this alteration can most conveniently be made is under discussion and consideration at the present moment, but with Mr. Speaker's permission I would like to defer answering that question until I have had an opportunity of consulting my Noble Friend.

Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: Can the Minister give an assurance that the very small accommodation now available for visitors to the House will not be reduced by this arrangement?

Mr. HUDSON: No, Sir. The hope is that we shall be able to increase the accommodation available for visitors to the House, but it is under discussion and if the House will forgive me I would sooner not make a statement until I have seen my Noble Friend.

Mr. PALING: While the matter is under discussion, is it not time somebody discussed the advisability getting more adequate accommodation for Members?

Mr. BARNES: Is it fair, when there is a great Debate in the House and Members have one ticket each, that 22 seats should be reserved for the Press, in addition to their ordinary accommodation, thus depriving Members' friends of the right of getting into the House?

Mr. HUDSON: I did say we are trying to see whether, by altering the accommodation, we can obtain more room for Members' friends, and if we are successful that, of course, would solve the difficulty to which my hon. Friend refers.

MEDITERRANEAN FLEET.

Mr. BOOTHBY: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether there have been any changes in the disposition and bases of the Mediterranean Fleet as a result of the raising of sanctions; and, if so, whether he can give the House any information regarding them?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Lord Stanley): As my hon. Friend is aware, the question of the raising of sanctions depends upon the decision of the League of Nations, by whom it is now being considered. Until a decision has actually been reached, no important changes in the disposition of the Fleet can be made, but, as soon as a return to normal conditions is possible, it is the intention of the Admiralty to arrange for those officers and men who have leave overdue to them to receive it.

Mr. BOOTHBY: Does not my Noble Friend consider it very undesirable that the movements of the Fleet should be fully and accurately reported in every Continental newspaper and not published in British newspapers, and as soon as ordinary conditions are restored, will he give an undertaking that the British public shall have full information regarding the movements of the Fleet?

Lord STANLEY: I have not received notice of that question, but I will look into it.

STOCK AND SHARE DEALERS (REGISTRATION).

Mr. TOUCHE: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will consider the advisability of introducing legislation for the compulsory registration of all persons dealing in stocks and shares who are not members of recognised stock exchanges?

Mr. R. C. MORRISON: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to a recent case of an outside stock and share broker sentenced to three years' penal servitude for extensive frauds upon the public; and, in view of the frequency of similar cases, will he consider immediate legislation for the compulsory registration of stocks and shares dealers who are not members of recognised stock exchanges?

Dr. BURGIN: My attention has been drawn to the case referred to by the hon.

Member for North Tottenham (Mr. R. C. Morrison), and the suggestion made in regard to the compulsory registration of dealers in stocks and shares has been noted for further consideration.

Mr. MORRISON: Could not the hon. Gentleman arrange, through the usual channels, for discussion to take place as to whether legislation such as that suggested in the questions would be likely to be non-contentious?

Dr. BURGIN: What I want the House to understand from my answer is that the mere question of registration of stock and share dealers can hardly be dealt with in isolation. The whole question of share-pushing involves certain clauses of the Companies Acts, and I think the hon. Member will appreciate that my answer that the suggestion has been noted for consideration means that the whole subject is under review.

Sir ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: Does this not again show how necessary it is to have a thorough examination by a Departmental Committee of the flaws in the Companies Act of 1929?

TRADE DISPUTES.

Sir GIFFORD FOX: asked the Minister of Labour whether he can make any statement as to the number of unofficial strikes which have occurred in this country in the last 12 months; and whether any of them are supposed to have been due in part or in whole to foreign influence?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead): Statistics are not available showing the total number of strikes which have not been officially recognised by the trade unions concerned, since specific inquiries on this point are not made by the Department. From an examination of such information as is in its possession, however, it would appear that of a total of 83 stoppages of work, owing to trade disputes, reported in the period from the beginning of January, 1935, to the end of May, 1936, at least 377 were within this category. I have no information to show that any of these stoppages have been due to foreign influence.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

THAMES VALLEY MOTOR-OMNIBUS SERVICES.

Sir G. FOX: asked the Minister of Labour whether any request for his assistance in effecting a settlement has been made to him by either side in the dispute affecting the Thames Valley motor-omnibus services; whether this strike is recognised by the union or not; and whether his Department can usefully take any steps to help in terminating this labour trouble?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: Representations have reached my Department from the local municipal authorities but not from the parties to the dispute. I understand that the dispute is not recognised by the trade union. Officers of my Department are in touch with the company and the trade union, and my hon. Friend may be assured that, as soon as a desire is shown to discuss the questions at issue through the proper constitutional channels, all possible assistance will be made available.

Brigadier-General BROWN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the very great inconvenience and suffering caused to the public in the country districts, and can he not take some steps either to provide them with fresh transport or to stop the present dispute?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: The question of transport is one for the Minister of Transport.

Mr. THORNE: Is this not another case where the management of the company refuse to meet the official delegates of the trade unions?

Sir G. FOX: asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been called to the public inconvenience caused by the strike of the Thames Valley motor-omnibus employés; and whether the Traffic Commissioners can give any special licences to other motor-omnibus undertakings to ensure at all events that attention is paid to the comfort and convenience of the public?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Captain Austin Hudson): The Traffic Commissioners have already granted temporary licences to other operators.

Brigadier-General BROWN: Does my hon. and gallant Friend not think that if the Traffic Commissioners had not abolished the small one-man omnibus services, generally run by ex-service men, in many of the country areas affected, there would not be this trouble?

TRAFFIC, HYDE PARK.

Sir W. DAVISON: asked the Minister of Transport what steps are being taken, in conjunction with the First Commissioner of Works, to relieve the increasing congestion of traffic at Victoria Gate, Hyde Park; and whether he is aware that considerable relief would be afforded by making a roundabout just inside the park, with additional gates to the west of the flower bed adjoining Victoria Gate, and by the widening of Victoria Gate itself in order to take two additional lines of traffic?

Captain HUDSON: Schemes embodying the features suggested by my hon. Friend have been discussed with the First Commissioner of Works, but owing to the very considerable sacrifice of park amenities it was not felt possible to press them. Recent inspections have indicated the necessity for a further review of the position, and my Department is now engaged in preparing a further scheme.

Sir W. DAVISON: While obliged to my hon. and gallant Friend for his answer, may I ask him whether he is aware that between 5 o'clock and 8 o'clock every evening there is a triple block of traffic between the Marble Arch and this gate and another from the Magazine to the gate, showing the great urgency of this matter; and, meanwhile, during the preparation of these plans, will he communicate with the Commissioner of Police with the idea of stopping the traffic crossing the road to Brooke Street and Hyde Park Gardens and making it go westwards?

Captain HUDSON: I will study my hon. Friend's supplementary question when it appears in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. THURTLE: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman convey to the Minister of Transport the fact that there are still people in London who walk, and suggest that he ought not to be concerned entirely with the convenience of motor-car users?

Sir W. DAVISON: But the pedestrians cannot get through three lines of traffic.

DEFENCE SERVICES (EMPLOYMENT AFTER DISCHARGE).

Mr. DAY: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will make a statement giving particulars of what steps His Majesty's Government are taking to ensure that soldiers, sailors, and members of the Air Force are given good employment or opportunities of finding same on their discharge from the Services and their return to civil life?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: During the concluding period of their Colour Service in the Army, about 3,000 men each year are given courses of training in occupations in which they are likely to be able to obtain employment on discharge. So far as the Navy is concerned, all ratings in their second period of service have the opportunity of taking a course of training prior to completing their time for pensions. Airmen have opportunities during their service of learning a skilled trade which is of benefit to them in civil life; during their last year of service they are also given facilities for taking educational courses, and obtaining experience in Royal Air Force workshops, which will assist them in obtaining civil employment on discharge. Men from all three Services are registered with the Employment Exchanges before they take their discharge, so that the exchanges may give them every assistance in finding suitable employment. They are also advised to register with the National Association for Employment of Regular Sailors, Soldiers and Airmen, their regimental or other Service Association, the British Legion and other organisations which endeavour to find employment for ex-regulars. The National Association, which has been in existence now for over 50 years, and has done very valuable work in finding employment for ex-regulars, receives grants from the three Service Departments. Vacancies in Government Departments suitable for ex-members of the Forces are reserved for them, the first preference being given to men who served in the Great War. Many of these vacancies occur in the General Post Office. In filling these vacancies, and generally, my Department co-operates closely with the National Association.

Mr. DAY: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say whether opportunities are given to the men to interview employers

before they leave the Service, if necessary?

Mr. G. GRIFFITHS: Do any of these naval ratings ask for special training in coal mining?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: Perhaps the hon. Member would put that question down?

COAL DISTILLATION (COUNTY DURHAM).

Mr. DAVID ADAMS: asked the Minister of Labour whether the National Coke and Oil Company, Limited, Erith, who recently intimated that they intend establishing additional coal distillation works in different areas of the country have been approached by him to include County Durham in the same?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: I am making inquiries and will communicate with the hon. Member.

FILMS (STATE CENSORSHIP).

Mr. DAY: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recommendations he has received from local licensing authorities suggesting a State censorship of talking films and news reels; and whether he will make a statement as to the Government's present attitude towards same?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): No such recommendation has been received from local licensing authorities, and I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which was given to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Cardiff (Captain Evans) on 30th April.

CAPE ASBESTOS WORKS, BARKING.

Mr. THORNE: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that a number of deaths have occurred of employés of the Cape Asbestos Works, Barking, through inhaling asbestos dust, and that in an inquest held at Walthamstow, on Monday, 15th June, on Charles E. Salinger, aged 36, of 59, Rancliffe Road, East Ham, it was proved that he left the firm six years ago; and whether, as the present regulations do not cover


workers employed in the warehouses, etc., the Government have any intention in altering the present regulations to cover all workers employed in this dangerous trade?

Mr. LLOYD: It appears from the evidence at the inquest that out of the nine years during which the deceased was employed at these works he was employed for at least the last seven years in a department to which the regulations now in force apply. I am advised that there is no reason to suppose that his previous employment as a packer was in any way responsible for his contracting the disease, and that no case exists at present for any extension of the regulations.

Mr. THORNE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the regulations only apply to the productive side of the factory; and will he consider the advisability of extending them so as to make them apply to the warehouses, owing to the number of people affected?

Mr. LLOYD: A special inquiry was held and found no evidence to show that there was danger in those departments.

POLICE ACTION (BETHNAL GREEN).

Sir P. HARRIS: asked the Home Secretary whether he has considered the case, of which full details have already been sent to him, of Mr. D. Renshaw, of 19, Ivimey Street, Bethnal Green, whose house was forcibly entered, on 16th June, by two plain-clothes detectives who, without producing any warrant until later when another detective brought it, used violence against Mr. and Mrs. Renshaw, cross-examined their son and arrested him two days later and treated him harshly; and, in view of the fact that no charge was made against any of these people and of the suffering caused to them morally and socially; will he see that a full apology is offered and satisfaction made?

Mr. LLOYD: The action of the police in this matter was taken under a warrant issued by a magistrate for a search of the premises. My right hon. Friend cannot accept in all respects the hon. Member's version of what occurred, but as proceedings are under consideration, my

right hon. Friend does not think that it would be proper to make any comment, at any rate at this stage.

Sir P. HARRIS: Does the Home Secretary consider it justifiable to force an entry, before resistance is made to entry, on the premises? Is that according to the general practice even when a search warrant is available? Is it not customary, before action is taken, that a sheriff's warrant should be presented to the people concerned?

Sir W. DAVISON: What was the object of the search warrant in this case?

Mr. LLOYD: I understand it was under the Betting Act.

Sir W. DAVISON: Does this not show how stupid it all is—breaking into people's houses to find out about some lottery?

FLAG DAYS.

Mr. SUTCLIFFE: asked the Home Secretary whether he can make a statement about the investigation which is now proceeding as regards the number of flag days held each year; and whether he will give an assurance that the voluntary hospitals will not be prejudicially affected by any new regulations which may be issued?

Mr. LLOYD: I presume my hon. Friend is referring to a development foreshadowed in the report for 1935 of the advisory committee, which advises the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis as regards the grant of permission for flag days in the Metropolitan Police District. Discussions have been taking place between the committee and various charitable interests, with a view to securing a reduction in the number of flag days by arrangements for kindred charities to make combined appeals to the public. No change in the regulations is contemplated and the new arrangements have still to be completed, but the Commissioner sees no reason to fear that the hospitals will suffer from them.

Mr. SUTCLIFFE: Can my hon. Friend say when the report is likely to be issued?

Mr. LLOYD: I think shortly.

Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is very strong


opposition in the outer suburbs to this action of the commissioner; and will he make the strongest representations to the commissioner in the matter?

Mr. LLOYD: Under statute the commissioner has to consider the advice of the advisory committee.

Mr. A. HENDERSON: Is it intended to have a flag day in order to restore the credit of the Government?

Mr. LLOYD: I ought to say that although there was a decrease in the number of flag days during 1935 there has actually been an increase in the amount of money collected.

INDIA OFFICE (STAFF).

Mr. VIANT: asked the Under-Secretary of State for India the number of persons employed in the India Office who are in receipt of salary in addition to pension, apart from war or disability pension?

Mr. BUTLER: Excluding 36 persons who are in receipt of naval or military pensions, there are seven persons so employed.

JAPAN.

Mr. MOREING (for Duchess of ATHOLL): asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to invite the Japanese Government to a discussion on all questions at present at issue; and whether he will invite the co-operation of the Government of the United States in any discussions that may take place?

Viscount CRANBORNE: All questions affecting either the Japanese Government or the United States Government are discussed in the normal manner as they arise with those Governments. There seems, therefore, no necessity for any such special invitation at present.

Mr. MOREING: (for Duchess of ATHOLL) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Sir Frederick Leith-Ross has reported any evidence of the desire on behalf of the Japanese Government to arrive at a general understanding with His Majesty's Government on Far Eastern questions?

Viscount CRANBORNE: It was made clear to Sir Frederick Leith-Ross that the Japanese Government are anxious to maintain friendly relations with His Majesty's Government, a desire which His Majesty's Government fully reciprocate.

UNEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE.

Major NEVEN-SPENCE: (for Mr. GUY) asked the Minister of Labour what arrangements the Unemployment Assistance Board make for the treatment of Income Tax paid by any earning member of a household in the assessment of the-household resources?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: I am informed by the Unemployment Assistance Board that where it is claimed that Income Tax paid by a wage-earning member of an applicant's household should be deducted from the amount of wages taken into account, the amount so paid is allowed as a special expense by an appropriate reduction of the amount of wages taken into account.

Miss WILKINSON: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has already given an answer quite contrary to that, and that in the mining areas these deductions are not allowed?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. ATTLEE: May I ask the Leader of the House what business it is proposed to take to-night?

Sir J. SIMON: The Third Reading of the Tithe Bill, which we hope to get at a reasonably early hour, and, if the business proceeds as contemplated, the Motion to approve the Cattle Industry Order, the Motion to approve the Greenwich Hospital Accounts, and the Motion to approve the Post Office (Ardrossan-Brodick) mail contract, which are exempted business; and we shall be glad, if there is time, also to take the Committee stage of the Crown Lands Bill.

Mr. THORNE: With regard to the Tithe Bill, will the Leader of the House say whether there is any truth in the statement that after it has passed this House and gone to the other House, the House of Lords will be asked to reject it?

Sir J. SIMON: There is no truth in that statement.

GREAT BRITAIN AND FRANCE.

MR. DUFF COOPER'S SPEECH.

At the end of Questions—

Mr. ATTLEE: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House in order to call attention to a denite matter of urgent public importance, namely, "The action of the Secretary of State for War in making, in a foreign country, immediately prior to the meeting of the Assembly of the League, a public pronouncement which conflicts with the declared foreign policy of His Majesty's Government and the treaty obligations by which this country is bound."

Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House in order to call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, "The action of the Secretary of State for War in making, in a foreign country, immediately prior to the meeting of the Assembly of the League, a public pronouncement which conflicts with the declared foreign policy of His Majesty's Government and the treaty obligations by which this country is bound." Hon. Members know that under Standing Order No. 8 this kind of Motion must be moved at the earliest possible moment. The speech to which this Motion refers was, I understand, made on Wednesday of last week. I do not think hon. Members of this House heard of it until the following Thursday, the day after, and therefore, after such a short time, I do not propose to object to the Motion on that ground, that it is not made at the earliest possible moment. It might have been made on Thursday, but I will take it that this is the earliest moment it could have been made. Has the right hon. Member the leave of the House?

The pleasure of the House having been signified, the Motion stood over, under Standing Order No. 8, until Half-past Seven o'Clock this evening.

Orders of the Day — TITHE BILL.

Order for Third Reading read.—(King's Consent signified.)

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Ramsbotham): rose—

Mr. THORNE: On a point of Order. Is it not rather unusual for a Parliamentary Secretary to move the Third Reading of a Bill?

Mr. SPEAKER: There is nothing unusual.

Mr. HARDIE: Will it be in order to ask why a deputation from the tithe-payers demonstration was not received by the Prime Minister?

Mr. SPEAKER: Not at this moment.

3.49 p.m.

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
We have now reached the final stage in this House of a very complicated and difficult Measure, and we have reached it after the expenditure of a comparatively small amount of Parliamentary time, considering the portentous size and length of this Measure and the forbidding and contentious nature of its contents. I believe that this expedition has been due to two main causes. One is the spirit of tolerance, good humour, and co-operation exhibited by Members of the Committee upstairs drawn from all parties. I would particularly like to pay this tribute to the party opposite, with special reference to the hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon). The second reason is the industry and patience exhibited at all times by my right hon. Friend, who consulted, before the Bill was introduced, every interest that might be affected by it and acquainted himself with all the grievances which were likely to arise during our discussions. I am told that the late Lord Rosebery once spoke of
the blameless and insipid occupation of receiving deputations.
No one, however, who was present at the deputations received by my right hon. Friend could possibly have called them

insipid, because in my recollection members of them generally gave full, frank and forcible expression to their opinions. The result of my right hon. Friend's action has been the complete removal of some grievances, the mitigation of others and the ventilation of all.
There are three main interests affected by this Measure; the tithe-owners, particularly the Church and the Colleges of Oxford and Cambridge; the tithe-payers, namely, the landowners and the farmers; and the general taxpayers represented by the Treasury. The House will realise that those are not easy interests to reconcile, for in many respects their views were entirely divergent and contradictory. Hon. Members will no doubt recollect the memorable voyage of Ulysses. But he had only two obstacles to negotiate, Scylla and Charybdis. In so doing he lost all his crew and had to take exceptional measures to save himself. My right hon. Friend has had three obstacles to negotiate, the three interests I have enumerated, and so far he has successfully steered between the tithe-owner and the tithe-payer without even having his Parliamentary Secretary washed overboard—at least, not yet—and he has so far escaped from foundering upon the formidable rock of the Treasury. In fact, some may say that he has taken a leaf from the story of Ulysses and tied himself to the mast by the red tape of a Financial Resolution. At any rate, my right hon. Friend will go down to history as a great navigator, and he may justly apply to himself the epithet ascribed by Homer to his hero,
a man of many wiles and great endurance.
I will deal first with the tithe-owner, and particularly with the interests of the Church. Our main problem here was to preserve the life interests of the existing incumbents. In a White Paper issued last February it was made apparent that a sum of about £2,000,000 was to be found out of the scheme in order, as far as possible, to mitigate the hardships of the individual clergy without, at the same time, involving any additional charge on the general taxpayer. That sum provided only enough to safeguard the life interests of the poorer clergy, that is, those incumbents in receipt of under £500 per annum. As the Noble Lord the Senior Member for Oxford University (Lord H. Cecil) rightly pointed out, "poor" is a relative


term. We all know that incumbents with over £500 per annum have in many cases involved themselves in heavy commitments, such as those of an educational character, and cannot immediately divest themselves of those commitments, into which they must have entered on the basis of a certain anticipated income. Human beings are easily adaptable to almost any change, provided they have time. In this case they had no time. Moreover, that figure of £2,000,000 was not enough to safeguard the Clergy Pensions Fund, nor was it enough to meet the cost of maintaining the fabric of our great cathedrals.
Here the resourcefulness of my right hon. Friend came again into play. He realised that there was not the same case for relieving the urban tithe-payer as there was for relieving the agricultural tithe-payer, and by separating these two he secured a sum estimated to amount to about £26,000 per annum, which was adequate to safeguard and preserve the Clergy Pensions Fund and the fabric of the cathedrals. But the life interests of the less poor incumbents were still in jeopardy. My right hon. Friend succeeded in solving that problem by inserting upstairs a provision in the Bill enabling Queen Anne's Bounty to devote part of the compensation received under this Measure to the interests of those incumbents at the expense of a small loss to the reversioners. The consequence is that under this Measure as it now comes before the House no life interest whatever is endangered, and the Church has been given time to re-arrange, re-marshal and improve her finances. The Noble Lord the Senior Member for Oxford University, if I rightly recollect, likened my right hon. Friend to a political gangster introducing the methods of the American underworld to politics. I would point out that there are degrees of gangsterism and that there is all the difference between Al Capone and Claude Duval or Robin Hood. If there is any truth in what the Noble Lord said, my right hon. Friend might resemble the latter.
Let me give an illustration. I will take the case of a traveller proceeding along a road carrying on his back most of his worldly wealth in the cumbrous, inconvenient and unmarketable form of gold nuggets and bars, jewelry and title deeds.

He is met by a gangster who politely relieves him of his burden, giving him in exchange the precise equivalent in cash and Government securities, which are a far more portable and less precarious security, minus a certain percentage and commission for the cost of collection and for the more convenient security. That traveller will congratulate himself when he learns that further down the road there are lying in wait to ambush him two sinister desperadoes, a big one and a little one, with the avowed intent, if they should meet him, of leaving him only so much as will suffice for his subsistence, and despoiling him of all he has stored up for his children and descendants. About three months ago an answer was given in the House stating that the Church would suffer loss to the amount of about £10,000,000, but my right hon. Friend is handing back to the Church a sum of at least £60,000,000, whereas, the policy of the Socialist and the Liberal parties would hand back to the Church only £22,000,000. In other words, their policy is to leave the Church with its life interest and to abstract the remainder. If that were so the traveller would have been lucky to have met Claude Duval, before encountering Al Capone and Jack Diamond.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander), who moved the rejection of the Bill on Second Reading, considers all tithes to be iniquitous and noxious. In support of that he endeavoured to floor us with the ponderous weight of Dr. Paley's "Moral Philosophy." I could, had I been so minded, have stunned him with the stupendous authority of Cripps on the "Law relating to Church and Clergy," which takes precisely the opposite view; but I do not think that this is the occasion for recriminations of that character. I only want to point out that Socialist policy appears to have undergone a very remarkable change in this matter in the last ten years. For in the debates on the 1925 Bill, we found their law officer delivering a most impassioned defence of church property. To-day we hear the Socialist party seeking the plaudits of the dukes and earning the maledictions of the deans.
I will now return to the Odyssey. The second danger that my right hon. Friend has had to steer past is the tithe-payer. In that same answer to which I referred


just now it was stated that the estimated benefit accruing to the tithe-payer under this scheme is a sum of £25,000,000. If ever seamen were saved by pouring oil on troubled waters, my right hon. Friend should escape. But there are still grumbles; we can still hear the noise of breakers upon the rocks. It is said, for instance, that the reduction from £105 to £91 11s. 2d. is not enough. What would be enough? What figure can we mention? [HON. MEMBERS: "Nothing!"] Hon. Members say "Nothing." That is probably a figure that would satisfy a certain section. Suppose that the figure were reduced to £70 or £60. What should we hear from the tithe-owner at whose expense that reduction must be made? After all, the Royal Commission examined this matter meticulously and heard the evidence of all sides. The Commission was composed of men of great intelligence and industry. They were entirely impartial and they recommended the figure which we have inserted in the Bill. Can any fair-minded person really expect, in face of that recommendation and those facts, that the Government would depart from the recommendation of the Royal Commission?
Secondly, it is said that the remission made in hard cases is inadequate. The House knows that provision is made by which the excess of the annuities over one-third of the Schedule B value is remitted. It is said to be insufficient. It is said that the figure should be one-sixth, or indeed one-seventh. After all, the figure of one-third of Schedule B was the figure asked for at the hearing before the Royal Commission by the National Farmers' Union. It is rather difficult for a fair-minded man to blame the Com mission for recommending that figure, or the Government for accepting it. Let me recall an instance that my right hon. Friend gave during the Second Reading. He showed that, apart from that point, this provision represented a very substantial concession. On a farm of 200 acres where the Schedule B value is £150 and tithe 7s. 6d. an acre, the relief is £32; when the tithe is 10s. an acre the relief is £50. Those are really very substantial concessions indeed. In the Bill the amount which might be set off against Income Tax in respect of the annuity was two-thirds. That figure was in effect arithmetically correct, but for

reasons which are equally correct and were explained on the report stage, my right hon. Friend altered the proportions to five-sixths and one-sixth.
Then we come to the question of personal liability. Here my right hon. Friend's ship nears the third main obstacle—the rugged cliffs of the Treasury inhabited by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his officials. I would remind the House that the general taxpayer under this Bill is in the last resort responsible for interest and sinking fund on this sum of £70,000,000. The general taxpayer is also responsible for interest and sinking fund on all Government obligations, and he discharges that responsibility by his payment of Income Tax and Sur-tax. If the power of the Inland Revenue to collect the sums due were curtailed, the credit of the Government would be impaired; the value of Government securities would be gravely diminished. I do not think that any Government in those circumstances has ever yet consented or has been asked to consent on behalf of the general taxpayer to diminish the power of the Inland Revenue to collect sums for interest and sinking fund on £70,000,000 or any other sum for which the general taxpayer is ultimately responsible. Nor indeed is it reasonable to impose upon the general taxpayer any further burden in addition to those already imposed upon him. There are 300,000 to 400,000 tithe-payers, and there are several millions of taxpayers. It is difficult indeed to see why this very large majority should be called upon to make further contributions for a small minority.
There is another point. There are many taxpayers in Scotland and North Ireland. They are general taxpayers, but they have, so far as I know, no interest, direct or indirect, in the tithe problem as it affects England and Wales. It would indeed be very difficult to find an excuse for placing further burdens on them. For that reason my right hon. Friend has been most careful, and has had to be most careful, to avoid alterations in this Bill which would charge the taxpayer with any obligations additional to those he has already incurred. The same consideration applies to the ratepayer. If the 40 years period recommended by the Royal Commission had been accepted, in default of any contribution from the taxpayer, the burden on the rates would have


increased, in many areas to some extent and in some areas to a very large extent; for instance in the area of West Suffolk the burden on the rates, as a result of maintaining the 40 years proposal, would have amounted to nearly an additional 3s. in the £. Neither this Government nor any Government would contemplate imposing such an additional burden on the local authorities. The only way of escaping from that position was to change the period of redemption from 40 to 60 years, and that has been done.
The balancing of these three great interests has inevitably led to a compromise. I believe that all hon. Members are agreed that tithe should be extinguished, that the Church should be separated from the tithe-payer, for obvious social and religious reasons, that the Church should be compensated, that the tithe-payer should be relieved, as far as possible without doing injustice to the tithe-owner, that provision should be made for hard cases, and that the general taxpayer should be protected. In arriving at a scheme or solution calculated to meet all those objects, it was not to be expected that we would get a solution definitely acceptable to all sides. A man who is losing money objects to the loss no matter what its amount. A man who is receiving money in relief of hardship seldom thinks that he is receiving enough. I defy a Government of archangels to fix a figure calculated to satisfy all parties. We have put this compromise before the House. It is the fairest compromise that we can devise, and it is in that spirit that I commend the Bill to the House.

4.10 p.m.

Mr. AMMON: I beg to move, to leave out the word "now," and, at the end of the Question, to add the words "upon this day three months."
The House must congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary on the skill he has shown in negotiating a really very difficult passage. As he said, his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture has been very much in the position of Ulysses negotiating Scylla and Charybdis. I imagine he has found it very much more difficult to negotiate the differences that lie between public opinion and the satisfying of tithe-owners, which seems to be the principal concern that animates

the Government in this Bill. The Parliamentary Secretary's introduction and the likeness of his right hon. Friend to a good-natured gangster, are rather in harmony with the whole proceedings on this Bill. One has to have regard also to the fact that it does very much depend upon whether the person from whom the money is taken had any right originally to the money. That is the position raised by the Bill.
In the Third Beading of this Bill the House is witnessing the last act of one of the biggest farces ever played on the stage. Here we have a Bill so drafted that Parliament has been denied the privilege of moving Amendments on anything of a fundamental character. So, when we found ourselves in Committee, as the Minister said, the whole proceedings were harmonious and expeditious and the Bill went through in record time, not altogether owing to the geniality and good will of the Minister himself, but because hon. Members, irrespective of the side of the House on which they sat, felt that it was a sheer pretence and waste of time to try to effect any important improvement in the Measure. Those who were Members of the Standing Committee will recall that the hon. Member for Canterbury (Sir W. Wayland) said at one stage of the proceedings that it was simply useless to sit there and try to do anything worth while. Upon my congratulating him on arriving at that decision, which some of us voiced on the Second Reading of the Bill, I was met with a chorus from the other side, which showed that they also felt the same way. Was there ever a more farcical proceeding than that to which the House has been asked to consent in dealing with this Bill?
It is an amazing Bill, also, from other points of view. It is a Bill which is not wanted in any quarter of the House. The hon. Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman) might be an exception, though I doubt whether he is; he is making the best of a bad job. From all sides of the House there has been a chorus of protest against the Bill, particularly because hon. Members have found themselves so "cabin'd, cribb'd and confined" in discussing it. The financial provisions of it are so drastic as to be an invasion of the rights of the Commons to control finance. It is worth while recalling that on the Second Reading the Noble Lord the Senior Member for Oxford University


expressed the opinion that the Committee would be able to alter the Bill. That opinion was soon shattered when the Financial Resolution came under discussion, both by the Rulings from the Chair and the opinion given to the House by the Home Secretary. Those decisions had to be observed, and were observed, when the Bill went to Committee, but it will be remembered that a good deal of indignation was expressed by the House at finding itself in such a position. It is not the first time that such a situation has been created, and I say respectfully to the Government that it is very dangerous at times such as these to do anything which is likely to lower the character or prestige of Parliament or make Parliamentary proceedings appear to be farcical, as has been the case with this Bill. The Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) expressed a view to which, I think, the whole House assented when he said, in commenting on criticisms on the form in which the Bill had been presented:
The gravamen of the charge is the way in which financial resolutions are now framed, which makes it impossible for the House to exercise its authority."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th May, 1936; col. 1121, Vol. 312.]
This is the last opportunity the House will have of exercising its authority over this Bill, and in asking the House to reject it I do so not so much on the provisions of the Bill itself, though I shall endeavour to show that they leave very much to be desired, as on account of the need for preserving the prestige and the authority of the House, because if this sort of thing continues Parliament might just as well dissolve and leave the whole thing to the executive. The hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Loftus), commenting on the utterance, which I have just quoted, of the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham, expressed what amounted to a hope that his statement was not correct. Unfortunately it proved to be only too true. The position in which the House found itself was described by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) when he said:
There is no real possibility of our side improving the position of the tithe-payer, except by rejecting the Bill on Third Reading."—{OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th May, 1936; col. 1127, Vol. 312.]
That is what I invite the House to do to-day. I see the hon. and gallant

Member for Tiverton (Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte) in his place. He will recall that he said that his attitude towards the Third Reading would depend on what happened in Committee. He will agree that precious little did happen in Committee, and that he is in pretty much the same position as he was on the Second Reading, because the Bill comes back to us exactly as it left the House in the important particulars of its financial provisions, not because the Committee were not desirous of amending it but because they were unable to do so. The Bill had been so drafted that everywhere we found ourselves up against the Ruling of the Chair that it was impossible for us to do anything, having regard to the King's recommendation and the narrowness with which the Bill had been drawn.
The Bill depends wholly upon its financial provisions. Surely it is a little too much to expect even this House—perhaps I ought to qualify that, because I admit that this House has expressed some measure of independence on one or two occasions—to be willing to sit down under conditions like those. If they do they are forfeiting everything for which Parliament has stood in days gone by and over which there has been many a bitter contest. The Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University expressed the opinion on Second Reading that Parliament had no right to interfere, that the Bill represented the politics of the American underworld and that the Minister for Agriculture stood in the position of an American racketeer. I will leave the right hon. Gentleman to discuss that point with the Noble Lord himself, but I pause to say that I strongly dissent from the view that Parliament has no right to discuss or to amend or even, if it thinks fit, utterly to wipe away tithe. Parliament has maintained its freedom in this respect almost from time immemorial. In looking up the history of tithe I noticed that so long ago as the reign of Henry IV it was laid down that tithes were designed for the relief of the poor, and an Act of that reign confirmed an earlier Act of Richard II which laid it down that on the appropriation of any parish church money was:
to be paid yearly of the fruits and profits of the said church to the poor parishioners.

Mr. PICKTHORN: Can we have the number of the Act?

Mr. AMMON: 15 Richard II, Chapter 6. A century ago, when tithe was changed to tithe rentcharge, no less an authority than Lord Melbourne laid it down that Parliament had the right to amend, change and, if it so thought fit, utterly abolish the whole system of tithe. No fewer than 15 other Acts have been passed since that Act of 1836 modifying the provisions of the law relating to tithe—a clear indication that Parliament has asserted its right to interfere in this matter. Parliament must take note of public opinion, and this is a mere surviving anachronism and oppressive in its burden on the particular industry of agriculture. Our history is not without warnings to Parliament of the dangers of refusing to take notice of public opinion. There is very little difference between this case and the case of ship money, which gave rise to a very big conflagration and involved the whole country in very serious trouble. Yet after Parliament had asserted its rights through all these centuries, we are now presented by this Government with a Bill under which Parliament will be deprived of the right of any further consideration—because that is what it amounts to. Under this Bill we are not even in the position in which they were in the fourteenth century, when they could discuss proposals brought forward for amending the law. At any rate, if we are able to discuss them it is only within such very narrow boundaries that we are not able to improve the proposals in any way. The Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University said of the Bill:
This is a cruel Measure, inflicting undeserved hardship on poor people and I cannot vote for it, and I hope that before it leaves this House it will be amended into a juster, fairer and more humane Bill."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th May, 1936; col. 439, Vol. 312.]
Probably the Noble Lord and I are not thinking of the same persons as affected by the Bill, but the fact is that the Bill is not amended, nor can it be amended.

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Elliot): It has been amended.

Mr. AMMON: Not in its financial provisions, which are the important, the vital part, the whole part, of the Bill.

Mr. ELLIOT: Does the hon. Gentleman deny that the very point to which the Noble Lord drew attention was amended in Committee, and that that grievance has been entirely removed?

Mr. AMMON: There has been no fundamental alteration in the Bill—the Noble Lord was probably thinking of a different set of persons from those of whom I am thinking—and in essence the position is precisely the same now as before.

Mr. ELLIOT: Not as regards the grievance referred to by the Noble Lord.

Mr. AMMON: I am concerned with the grievance I am presenting, and which other Members on both sides of the House share. The position now is that tithe has been created, practically, into what one might call a gilt-edged security. What has formerly been regarded as a very contentious right of the Church is now to be safeguarded. It has been put beyond the purview of Parliament, and the Treasury are to act as collectors. The Parliamentary Secretary said that it was a good thing to separate the Church from the tithe-payer. It is going to take 60 years to do it, and in that time the Treasury is to act as the collector of a sum of money gathered in the interest of the Church, regardless of who pays it, regardless of the other sections of the community, whatever their religious views. It is true that Parliament can pass rescinding legislation, but I venture to say that it will be a very much more difficult thing to do so when £70,000,000 of public money is concerned and the State is acting as collector. There is also the added power of distraint for indebtedness, an entirely new factor in connection with tithe.
Of the merits of the case as between tithe-owner and tithe-payer other Members, particularly those on the Government side, will be able to speak with knowledge. I should like to point out that the present position arises out of, or came to a head as a result of, the War years. There is no reason to think that either side was unduly concerned with the public weal when the Corn Production Act was passed. Agricultural prices rose, and many tenants were forced to buy their farms at increased prices. Many people went into farming in order to secure the expected profits. The War


ended too soon, the repeal of the Corn Production Act followed, prices fell and with them the value of land. Then we had the gross stupidity of the Act of 1925, which fixed the tithe at 105. In 1913 it had been round about 76, and I imagine that that would have been a much more equitable figure at which to fix it now than the £91 odd which is in this Bill.
The Parliamentary Secretary accused those on this side of the House of being friends of dukes. Is he not aware of the great demonstration in Hyde Park last week? I took occasion to go along the Thames Embankment to watch the demonstrators, and they were altogether different from my conception of dukes—even the dukes whom I have seen in another place—and, also, there were too many of them. They were people earning their living by the sweat of their brow who thought they had been put under a very great grievance. One of their grievances is that the commuted value of the tithe seems based on no intelligent price in being fixed at £91 11s. 2d. for upwards of 60 years—for the simple reason, as far as one can see, that that was the average amount paid 80 to 100 years ago. The suggestion is absurd. One can hardly expect hon. Members to regard it with any favour, either here or in Committee, where there was a general consensus of opinion that the whole matter was farcical and put Parliament in the ludicrous position of being unable to amend the Bill.
The Bill takes no account of the great changes that have affected agriculture, or of the rise of Nonconformity or of changes within the Established Church. In that connection I have had a leaflet sent to me, as have no doubt other hon. Members, issued by the Berks, Bucks and Oxon Tithe-payers' Association. They say:
We cannot understand why the Bill compels us to make a further gift to the poorer clergy of £2,000,000. The tithepayer has never been obliged to provide the clergy with an adequate, or what may be thought to be an adequate, income. His only obligation has been to hand over one-tenth of his titheable produce, or what the Act of 1836 considered to represent a tenth of his titheable produce, in money.
If the just amount of this now is £91 11s. 2d. per £100 (as the commission said, but which we think far too high) why should we be called upon to make a further payment of £2,000,000 because some of the clergy are underpaid? Many of us do not

belong to the Church of England and, apart from what may be just and right in the matter of tithe, we do not think that farmers alone should be called upon for such a special payment. A good many livings in this district have in recent years been pooled and one incumbent appointed where formerly two were kept, the vacant rectories let or sold and the money thus saved has probably been used to provide new churches and clergy in densely populated districts not associated with agriculture.
There has been a considerable change in the position. I have quoted from earlier Statutes which were made when the money was held in trust merely for the Church and for the relief of the necessities of the poor. Our great public schools have been taken over and used for vested interests. I have in my hand a copy of the interim report of the Social and Industrial Commission on the Coal Industry issued by the Church Assembly. Attention is called in it to a letter written by the Archbishop of Canterbury to the "Times" on 11th January, 1936, when His Grace said, a propos of the responsibility of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners as owners of mining properties:
The commissioners have always accepted the moral duty resting upon all owners of property to have regard to the conditions of the industry from which revenues are derived. Such a duty exists irrespective of the nature of the property and ought to have priority over whatever object the revenues may be used for—even a charitable trust.
The Commission say:
Natural resources. … should be devoted to the general service of the communty as a whole with such obvious equity as not to create the social strife and disunion, which now and for many years have been associated with the mining industry.
Change the word "mining" to "agricultural" and you have a comment which fits eactly the present situation.
An hon. Member has handed to me a letter which he received from one of his constituents. Its comments upon the Bill probably represent a good many other comments. It says:
In 1908, I bought 76 acres of land, knowing the tithe was 3s. an acre. It was then let at 18s. an acre. During the War it was put up to 4s. 8d. an acre, where it still remains, and this land is no wlet to the best man I could get at 5s. an acre. The parson told me when I bought it that I could rest assured that tithe would always be fixed by the price of corn. I might say I was 25 years churchwarden in the little parish where the land is, and we did not average six people at the church service on the Sunday,


neither did we average one funeral, one wedding or one christening a year; neither do they now. Yet every acre of land in the parish has to pay 4s. 8d. an acre. The rectory is now closed and is in a desolate condition. I might say that during the last 50 years I have paid over £3,000 in tithes and have been summoned on three occasions for not paying tithe, and have had to pay.
That letter represents the very strong feeling throughout the country among the agriculture community, where the pressure of these conditions is being felt. There is no remedy for them in the Bill.
Another point is that the Bill introduces a new and objectionable feature, because Clause 16 (4) and (5) makes a new departure in the recovery of debt for agriculture. Hitherto, debts were only recovered on the farm, but now the whole property can be distrained upon, and the farmer reduced to bankruptcy. This is an entirely new procedure. Public money is being raised and the Treasury are to act in the position of tax collectors in order to maintain and perpetuate something which was introduce for an entirely different purpose. The whole matter is being taken out of the purview of Parliament for the next 60 years, so that there will be no possibility of it being discussed and considered. The Bill is like almost everything else that the Government have done; it shows no bold and efficient grappling with the problem. Vested interest are the Government's first consideration. When we were considering the Air Navigation Bill, the Coal Bill and the Shipping Subsidy Bill, the Government missed tremendous opportunities of bringing in great, far-reaching ameliorative legislation, which might have done great good to the community. There is more unfairness in the present Measure, for one reason because it deals with land and for another because the Church never had inalienable rights to tithe. It has always been for Parliament to say whether and when they should be ended or mended. For those reasons, and particularly for the reason that the House of Commons will lose all authority and the Bill is an invasion of our right of control over finance, I move the Amendment.

4.39 p.m.

Mr. LAMBERT: It is not my intention to argue with the hon. Member for

North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon). This is a very deep question which will take us a considerable way. The Financial Resolution was very rigidly worded. Of course the House has control, and can always upset the Government. It therefore cannot be said that the House of Commons has not control. When I heard the witty, persuasive speech of the Parliamentary Secretary, I thought that all was well, but I can assure my right hon. Friend that all is not well outside. There is a growing body of opinion which is, I will not say antagonistic to, but very suspicious of this Measure. I know that my right hon. Friend has had very great difficulties. He has never shown his Parliamentary adroitness with greater skill than he has in conducting this Bill, but he has always been tied to the Church on the one hand and to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the other.
The fundamental fallacy which seems to apply to the whole of the Bill is that the Act of 1925 is sacrosanct and is like the laws of the Medes and Persians. It is well for us to remember that tithe-payers on agricultural land have a reduction of 16.8 per cent., but that is based on the Act of 1925, which fixed tithe at £105. There was no reason for fixing tithe at £105 in 1925.That was an unfair and unjust proportion. Since then, there has been a precipitous drop in prices. Corn prices have fallen precipitously. The statistical department of the Ministry, in which I have the greatest confidence, supplied me with figures which show that the Gazette price per cwt. of wheat in 1925, when the Act was passed, was 12s. 2d. and that in 1935 it had dropped to 5s. 2d., an enormous fall. The Gazette price of barley was 11s. 9d. and that has dropped to 7s. 11d. The Gazette price of oats was 9s. 9d., and that has dropped to 6s. 8d. You can sympathise with the man who has to pay tithes when the prices of his products have fallen so drastically. I feel that he has a grievence, inasmuch as the Bill is founded upon 1925. It shows how important it is so foresee, not 60 years hence, as does the Bill, but even ten years hence. We must remember that ten years ago those were the prices, as I have quoted them, and that to-day they have fallen tremendously. When I am told that the Act of 1925 cannot be altered, I remember that the Corn Production Act, which affected agriculture, was repealed in 1920.
I warn the right hon. Gentleman that there is a feeling of rankling injustice in the country districts on this matter. In the West of England we have distress sales which are symptomatic of something, and they will do and are doing immense damage to the Church. The Church is a spiritual institution and when there is anything like injustice or apparent injustice, the Church must suffer. We have been told that tithes are a charge on the land. I am prepared to accept that statement. The land has been bought and sold subject to tithe. But very little land has been bought or sold since 1925, and when, therefore, land has been bought and sold with tithe upon it, it has been on the understanding that the tithe would rise and fall according to the Act of 1836. That, to my mind, is only reasonable, and, although I know my right hon. Friend's difficulties, I cannot help feeling that, as he has only reduced the tithe, in spite of this very heavy fall in prices, by something like 16 per cent., there will be very great dissatisfaction outside. Before the War, in 1913, the tithe rentcharge was £76 per £100 par value. I understand that, if the calculations were made on the prices I have quoted, it would be something like £71 per £100 of par value, and when a man has to pay the difference between £71 and £91 11s. 2d., there must be dissatisfaction. I have no doubt that the Bill will go through, but I should have liked the Minister to have considered whether it was not possible to take out the redemption Clauses. If the redemption Clauses were taken out, the tithe rentcharge would go back to £76, which is more or less a reasonable figure.
It is said, however, that this Bill must wipe out tithe in 60 years. I am not tremendously interested in what will happen 60 years hence, in 1996. At that time I shall probably be playing the harp, and my right hon. Friend will probably be playing the bagpipes. This is a matter in which the present tithe-payers require immediate relief. Would it not have been very much better to give them that relief now, rather than wait until 1996? I cannot help feeling that the Government would have eased the situation very much more, if they had taken out the redemption Clauses altogether. But, if the Government are determined, they will, of course, carry

their way. I am sorry for it, because, despite the fact that I see it stated in influential journals that agriculturists have the best of this world in taxes, and I agree that the agricultural taxpayers have received great favours from the Government, I must remind the House, the Government and the country that prices have tumbled precipitately, that the cost of repairs has gone up by something like 75 per cent., and that wages have increased—they have rightly increased, and are still not high enough to keep men on the land. Therefore, I suggest that it would have been a wise act on the part of the Government if they could have brought the present burden upon the tithe-payers down.
In 1836, when the Tithe Commutation Act was passed, land was the main wealth of the country. To-day we all know that land, qua land, has no value whatsoever—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—I am talking of agricultural land. If you take the buildings, and the improvements, and the fences, and the cultivation, these have wiped out all the value of the land, and in fact, to-day, in hardly any agricultural district would it be possible to get for a farm the amount of money that has been spent upon it. It is becoming a question in the rural districts why it is that agricultural land should have to maintain the national Church. It is a big burden, and it bas assumed it for a good many years, but I am afraid that this Bill will not add to the general content. I happened to be in Hyde Park the other day and went to see the demonstration, and I was amazed at the widespread discontent that was shown. I can only hope that this discontent will die down, but I very much fear that it will not. I wish my right hon. Friend could have adopted the suggestion I have made and withdrawn the redemption Clauses, for then, I think, the Bill would have been far more favourably received in the country.

4.51 p.m.

Mr. SPENS: I have very grave doubt whether the suggestion that the redemption Clauses of the Bill should be withdrawn is one that would be universally popular throughout the country. Speaking with such responsibility as I have for one of the most distressed areas, it seems to me that one good point at any rate in the Bill is that in time the annuity


payments which are the semblance of tithe rentcharge will cease to be payable, and, for our grandchildren at any rate, there will be no collection in the countryside in respect of these annuity payments, nor anything which directly or remotely represents tithe. One realises, of course, that there is a great deal of disappointment among tithe-payers, and particularly among those whose land is specially heavily tithed by reason of the fact that it was arable land in 1836 and has long since ceased to be arable, with the measure of relief which it has been possible to give them in this Bill, and, although. I thank my right hon. Friend for many Amendments which I believe will smooth the working of the Bill as time goes on, I feel that the relief afforded to the owners of heavily tithed land of that description is not really going to be sufficient to get them out of the troubles in which they are.
I realise that, if we have to take a scheme in which what is to go out to tithe-owners, in the way of stock, interest and sinking fund, has to come practically entirely from the tithe-payers who have to pay in on the other side—because the Government contribution, to my mind, really represents little more than a continuation of the relief that was already being given to local authorities in respect of rates on ecclesiastical tithe—and if there is to be no additional contribution worth having from the Exchequer at the expense of the taxpayer, then I believe that this scheme is as good a one as can be got on that basis. To my mind the mistake, which I have openly condemned, lies in the fact that there has been no additional contribution, beyond the rate relief, from the Exchequer at the expense of the taxpayer.
On this point I differ fundamentally from right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, whose main object throughout the proceedings on this Bill has been to make sure that the taxpayer should not have to pay any more, their view being that the Church ought to be looted in order further to relieve the tithe-payer. With those views I do not agree. I do not believe that the Church or any other tithe-owners could properly be asked to give up more than they are giving up under this Bill, and for a solution on the lines that I wanted there ought to have been, in my view, an additional contribution

by the Exchequer at the expense of the taxpayers. Historically that would have been the right solution, and I believe there are very few people in this country among the taxpayers generally who would have objected to a contribution being made by the Exchequer at the expense of the taxpayers into the sinking fund, so that, in those cases in which the amount of the tithe annuities fell particularly hardly on the owners of the land, the annuities might have been reduced. To my mind the fact that these annuities on heavily tithed land remain, and will remain, above what I believe it is possible for the owners of the land to pay, even with the one-third Schedule B relief, is the great flaw in the Bill as it stands at present.
The other point which is causing so much trouble is the imposition for the first time on the tithe-payer, with the exception of the extraordinary tithe rent-charge, of personal liability. I realise that obviously, if there is to be assistance by national credit—and that is what the assistance from the Exchequer is—by the issue of guaranteed stock, it is a very sound argument that, ultimately and at length, the person who has to pay into the pool the amount which has to go out to repay interest and sinking fund must be made to pay if he can pay. But, on the other hand, I want to repeat that the provision that a court of law has got to make an order for personal execution at the request of the commission, however doubtful the judge may feel as to whether it is a proper case for personal execution, is another great flaw in the Bill. I believe that a court ought to be given a discretion as to whether it ought to make an order for personal execution, and I dislike intensely the idea that any judge, whether a county court judge or otherwise, should be turned into a mere instrument for enforcing the demand of the commission. I believe that, as I advocated in Committee, if that particular provision were removed, and if judges were given a discretion as to whether or not an order for personal execution ought to go as of course, it would go a very long way towards oiling the machinery during these first years.
I have stated my main objections to the Bill as it stands at present. They are objections on which the growing unrest throughout the country is mainly founded. But, on the other side, those


of us who represent these areas ought in my view to take many other points into consideration. The Bill sets up a committee which is given power to open up all the outstanding arrears—power to open up actual orders of courts insisting at the present moment that the land is liable for so many pounds of tithe rent-charge. The owner of that land, despite orders, is to have the right of showing to a court that he ought to be let off something. It is true that, in going before the committee, he has to take on the personal liability, but none the less it is a great thing that these owners of land should have the right of having their outstanding arrears again inquired into.
Only yesterday I had at my home a man who has orders in respect of the last four or five years, the payment for which is being pressed for, and distress is being threatened by the tithe-owner, even while the Bill is going through the House. My advice to him was to look forward to the setting up of the committee which is to go into financial affairs and wait till they have made up their minds how much of these heavy outstanding arrears he really has to pay.
Above all, the great advantage of the Bill is to get rid of the present machinery for collecting tithes. There is no good pretending that there is not the greatest ill-feeling existing in the heavily tithed areas against those bodies whose duty it is to collect; and to substitute for them a new commission, responsible indirectly to the House, which will go into every case and find out the exact amount payable and then proceed to exercise their powers of collection in substitution for the existing collecting authorities is one great step forward, which may help towards restoring peace in the countryside. As to the actual amount of reductions, those for the lightly tithed land where, on the whole, there has not been any great trouble in collecting it, and in respect of which there have been very few instances of hardship, they are substantial. The difficulty arises in the case of heavily tithed land, where you may have hard cases.
What is going to be the position of those men in the future? It is all going to depend on the policy that the commission is going to adopt during the next two or three years. If they carry out the statutory duty imposed upon them, with

discretion and understanding of the difficulties of the tithe-payers, I believe there is a very fair chance that this new machinery may go a long way to dispelling our difficulties, but it will all depend on how the new commission use the machinery put at their disposal. It may be used harshly and thoughtlessly and severely. If so, I fear we shall not get peace. But we have to remember the other interests as well as those of the tithe-payer. To my mind there is such a chance that this change of machinery, despite the deficiencies, as they appear to me, in connection with the Bill, may be a real step forward towards restoring peace that, in spite of the criticisms that I have made, I propose to support the Third Reading.

5.5 p.m.

Sir FRANCIS ACLAND: I am glad that the alteration was made in Committee which enabled the present incumbents in their present incumbencies not to have a diminished income. That suggestion was first put on the Order Paper in our reasoned Amendment to the Second Reading, and I am glad that it has been possible to carry it out. I must correct the suggestion of the Parliamentary Secretary that that was the only provision which those for whom I am now speaking were willing to make in the matter of payment. The Minister made the same point, but at once withdrew it when the matter was corrected by my hon. Friend. That is not our position at all. Coming to the main point, I cannot avoid the conviction that the Government's action in producing and pushing this Bill through has been unwise, and will be realised to be unwise later on. I think it will be found that the Bill is not accepted by a very large proportion of tithe-payers as an acceptable and reasonable compromise between the parties concerned. I think there will be very gret resentment against some of its main provisions, and in some districts the opposition to payment will be intensified rather than abolished.
The main mistake that I think the Government have made is that they did not allow the country and those concerned to consider the Report of the Royal Commission by itself. It is an insult to a Royal Commission not to let its Report be published for consideration by the country and to hold it up for months


until the Government have made some commentary on it and had, after consulting one party only, namely, the Church, and not the tithe-payers at all, added 50 per cent. to the payment required to be made by tithe-payers. That was a fundamental mistake which will prevent the Bill being the basis of anything like the friendly settlement which some people suggest it will be. If the payment had been for 40 years, as the Royal Commission proposed, a great many people would have said: "It is much too high. It still seems to be based on far too high corn prices compared with those ruling now, but, after all, 40 years is a time to which even we, if we are young men, can look forward and to which our children will undoubtedly reach." But when it was made 60 it became a very different prospect, and I do not wonder at the point made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert) that, if the Government are really going to propose 60 years, they might just as well have no limit at all and go on indefinitely, but on a lower basis of payment.
It is the fact of the Government having varied the Royal Commission's Report that has produced a great deal of the present soreness and sense of grievance. Of course, the important question is too big for any of us to consider in detail, the question of the rates, but the Government might have dealt with that without putting the burden of compensating the local authorities on to the tithe-payer, which is what they have done. I think the Government could have adjusted that in view of the fact that local authorities in general are going to gain more from the fact that agricultural workers are going to receive Unemployment Insurance than they would have lost if they had had to pay what is now paid to them by the Government on tithe. I know, of course, that there is no arithmetical correspondence between the two in particular areas, but the Government is the paymaster of the local authorities and can adjust that as they like, and it might have been so adjusted that, taking the two things together, there would have been no loss in the area of any local authority, and that would have been a far better

alternative than simply putting an extra 17 years on to the tithe-payer.
I, too, saw the demonstration in Hyde Park and I was convinced that, for the reasons that I have given—and many more could be given—the settlement proposed could not be accepted, as the Government seem to think, as final. I heard some arguments which I thought were rather extreme and some I did not quite agree with, but the actual men I knew, the men from Devon and Cornwall, seemed to me to be the finest type of yeoman farmer, men who mean what they say and are difficult customers to deal with if you get their backs up; and when they say they feel more adverse to the new Bill than they did to the settlement which it supersedes they mean something definite by it and there is no possibility of the difficulty in collection being overcome when the Bill is passed. They feel very intensely the unfairness, as they think it, in the nature of the payment from a charge collectable on certain produce of the soil into a personal tax liability. I am afraid we shall find that there will be refusal to pay, there will be resistance and there will be imprisonment, and there will be a good deal of sympathy with those who go to prison rather than pay, and from that point of view the Bill will not have reached the settlement that is desired.
I know that the hon. Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman) will say, "Do you not realise what the Church is losing compared with the settlement of 1925? "I do, but it was quite impossible on any grounds of justice to maintain a settlement based on prices as they then were, and I want to make this point which a good many Churchmen do not realise. The gain to the Church of having £70,000,000 of good solid Government money, which is what they will have, instead of the precarious tithe income, becoming every year more precarious, is quite enormous. The idea that it would have been possible to go on collecting tithes for another 75 years under the present Act, in view of the very rapid changes that are corning even over the countryside which is supposed to be so unvarying and unvariable—the idea that they can compare what they would have received if there had been no alteration in the law with what they are going to receive under the law as it is going to be after the Bill is passed, is wholly illusory.


There is a very strong and growing feeling, even on the part of members of the Church of England, that the Church is failing to relate the money that they receive to the services they render, and the longer the delay in readjusting the service they give to the necessities of the people had gone on—there seems no prospect of it being tackled by the Church in a businesslike way—the more difficult the tithe would have been to collect, and any calculation based on what would have been the position without the Bill, comparing it with the position created by the Bill, is rather lacking in actuality.
The gain to the Church in having this fixed sum provided from State funds is quite enormous. I hope that the Government will perhaps learn one thing. When they appoint a Royal Commission they had better let its report rest where it is without altering it and putting it before the country on an entirely different basis. It is mainly because of that fact that I see no prospect of a final or satisfactory settlement being achieved.

5.16 p.m.

Mr. CLEMENT DAVIES: I should like to congratulate the Minister upon being the person responsible, when this Bill is placed upon the Statute Book in a few weeks' time, for putting an end to tithe. This subject has so often been a matter of dispute between us throughout the years, and now at any rate tithe is to come to an end. Though I realise that Parliaments are not bound, I cannot imagine for a moment any Parliament in the future restoring tithe in the form in which we have known it, and from which we have for so long suffered. While I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman upon attaining that position. I join the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon), who rightly criticised the methods of the Government in passing the Bill through the House. I noticed that the Minister objected to the hon. Member's statement that no Amendment had been introduced in Committee. No Amendment worthy of the name was introduced or stood the remotest chance of either being in order or being carried in Committee. That was because of the system, which has now become so persistent in the House, of limiting the right of our discussion by the tremendous detail of the Financial

Resolution, thereby rendering us really powerless.
I remember many of us saying on the Second Reading that all would be agreed because tithe was to come to an end. We were saying on both sides of the House that we were to see the end of it. The Royal Commission had reported on it, but, of course, there would be disagreement upon the terms. But because of that Financial Resolution and the detailed way in which it had been drawn, many of us were in a tremendous dilemma. Either we could vote against the Government, and, if there were a sufficient number of us, defeat the Government, and perhaps for a long time to come put aside from further discussion the question of tithe; or vote for the Government and carry the Financial Resolution and thereby deprive ourselves of the right of further real criticism of the terms. Those were the things that mattered. On the one side you had the tithe-owners saying, "We are not getting enough. We are being badly treated," or "We are getting only £50,000,000, when we ought to have had £70,000,000." On the other hand, you had the tithe-payers calling attention to the extraordinary amount that they had been paying in the past, and saying there was no reason whatever why, as the right hon. Gentleman for South Molton (Mr. Lambert) said, the figures should have been fixed in 1925 and continued throughout these depressed periods until to-day. There was room for argument and for moving Amendments on either side. Both these courses were out of order, and our tongues were tied.
Now we are faced with the Third Reading. Speaking for myself, I shall certainly vote for the Third Reading, for I regard the removal of tithe, whether now or in 60 years' time, as of possibly more importance at the present moment than the actual terms. I will tell the House why. Whatever the Minister may think, I do not regard this as a permanent and final settlement. There will come a time, without a doubt, when the farmers and tithe-payers will come to this House and say, "We have been badly treated and called upon to pay too much." It may be that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman) may come along and defend the tithe-owner. I am convinced that


voices will be heard throughout the land with regard to the terms, which must be discussed on the Floor of the House, which is the proper place. That is why I say that, if anyone thinks that this is the final settlement, he is taking far too optimistic a view of this very vexed question. At any rate, we can congratulate ourselves that this afternoon, in a very thin House, this great question, which has agitated so many minds throughout the whole of the century, is passing through with so much ease and without any of the acrimony and feeling engendered in the past.
I should like to thank the Minister for the way in which he has dealt with the position in regard to Wales. Prior to the Bill, all of us in Wales, thanks to the Disestablishment and Disendowment Acts now on the Statute Book, are paying lay tithe, but, unfortunately, there was no power of redemption. When the Bill becomes law, there will be the right to redeem, and that is where I differ—and I think this is the only occasion on which I have found myself differing from him—from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Molton. I regard the fact that for once and for all an end will be put to tithe, and that there will be the right to redeem, as a real step forward with respect to the Welsh tithe. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Cornwall (Sir F. Acland) in that I should have preferred it to have been wiped off not in 60 years, but in 40 years. But whether it will be 40 years or 60 years, or even less than 40 years, is a matter which will have to be discussed in this House.
There is another point upon which the Minister has met us, with the assistance of the Treasury, namely, the financial position in which the Welsh Church Commission found itself, and the amount of interest which it had to pay. Thanks to the fact that the Minister, with the assistance of the Treasury, has now come to our assistance, we shall no longer be compelled to pay the very high rate of interest—5 per cent.—that we have had to pay since 1920. That will be reduced to a proper proportion, and for that I am grateful. I hope that the House will give the Bill the Third Reading, realising, as, I think, everybody does, that it is a great step forward, and that never will

there be a retrograde step again. But it is not the final settlement; it is only possibly the beginning of another discussion with regard to terms.

5.23 p.m.

Mr. PATRICK: I do not always find myself in agreement with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Cornwall (Sir F. Acland), but on this occasion I am in most hearty agreement with him in what he said about the shortening of the period. It is rather a late stage in this Bill to hark back to first principles, but there is one aspect of first principles which I should like to put before the House. The question which I am most commonly asked by tithe-payers—and I have no doubt that it is asked of other hon. Members representing agricultural constituencies—not only by tithe-payers who happen to be Nonconformists, but staunch members of the Church of England as well, is why, if the Church of England is indeed a national Church, one particular section of the community, and apparently a small one at that, has to bear so high a percentage of the cost of the Church's upkeep? That is a question which I have always found it impossible to answer, and I have never heard anyone else give a satisfactory answer. I do not think that there is an answer.
The various historical aspects of the question which have been dug up by one side or the other for controversial purposes, really seem to be neither here nor there. The House has to deal with the position as it is in the 20th century, and that position is a very anomalous one. It is the fact that the agricultural industry, which is still a somewhat depressed industry—in some parts of it there is acute distress still—represents at the widest computation only 10 per cent. or less of the population of these islands, yet that small percentage has to bear a proportion of the cost of maintaining the national Church really out of ratio altogether in numbers or wealth with the community as a whole. There is no getting away from that fact. The State might have taken a very different line from that it has taken. It might have been said that tithe, by way of being an historical accident, was something in which the State could not interfere. It might have been said that the tithe-owners and tithe-payers might have settled their differences in the normal


way in which disputes arising in transactions between other classes of the community are daily settled. But it did not take that line.
The State has been intervening decisively in the controversy, and, having done that, it cannot escape responsibility ultimately for putting right any anomalies or anachronisms which may remain. Anachronisms and anomalies unquestionably remain. The State has the responsibility of putting these things right, but unfortunately under the Bill, from a purely practical point of view and from the point of view of the tithe-payer, the situation will remain for another 60 years very much in essence what it is to-day. Important changes of detail have been made—I admit that fact—but unfortunately these changes do not seem to achieve their object. The Church seems to have got a new grievance, whereas the tithe-payer does not appear to have lost his old one. The percentage of advantage that he gets in his current payments seems to be, rightly or wrongly, outweighed in his eyes by the change in the state of his liability. There is no question about that.
The question was, how could the Bill be improved. What has actually been done gives a very useful line of thought which may be applied to this Bill. Incumbents of livings who rely very largely upon tithe are to be safeguarded from loss during their lifetime. Precisely that same principle might equally be applied to the other side, to the tithe-payers. Sixty years is a period altogether too long in my opinion; even 40 years, suggested by the Royal Commission, was also too long. The commonly accepted average span of the human lifetime is generally taken to be 33 years, and that period should have been taken as a basis. Had it been so taken, the feeling which exists now would not have manifested itself, or, if it had, would have very quickly disappeared. There is all the difference in the world, from the psychological point of view, between 60 and 30 years. There is all the difference in the case of a man who may look forward to getting rid of a charge during his own lifetime and that charge carrying on through the life of his children and grandchildren.
If the change had been made, the State and possibly the local authorities would

have had to make a substantial contribution, but in these days of tremendous national budgets the total contribution would have been so small, spread over the community as a whole, that no individual would have felt any perceptible hardship. That is the line that the State ought to have taken. I cannot pretend to give an estimate of the total amount that would have been involved, but I think I am right in saying that, spread over the whole community, no one would have suffered by the State cutting down the redemption period to 33 years. If that had been done it would not have been a case of merely trying to placate the tithe-payer or trying to buy off the Church, but it would have been better for the State to do what in justice and logic it ought to have done in the first instance.
I realise that it is too late to introduce these proposals into the Bill now. The Bill will pass into law and come into force three or four months hence, but I very much doubt whether this represents the last that we shall hear of this question in the House. I am very much afraid that the feeling among tithe-payers will persist in a chronic and acute form, and I am much afraid that it will be still one more settlement which was meant to be final but will have to come back to the House for revision. I fear also that it will prove a continual source of embarrassment to whatever Government is in power, because we must remember that no longer will there be Queen Anne's Bounty to act as a kind of buffer and, still worse, I am very much afraid that the status and prestige of the Church will suffer.

5.33 p.m.

Mr. DENMAN: I had hoped that on the Third Reading we should have had more leisure than we have hitherto had for discussing the important points of the Bill. Unfortunately, our time is limited and as there are many speakers each of us will have to compress his arguments much more than he may like to do. I should like to add a sincere word of congratulation to the Minister of Agriculture, who during the passage of the Bill has displayed a Parliamentary technique that I have never seen equalled. He has been compared to Ulysses and Robin Hood. I should rather have compared him to the Red Queen with Alice.


We remember how she took her firmly by the hand and careered onward with breathless speed and landed exhausted at her destination. My right hon. Friend in reaching the Third Reading stage has certainly adopted one sentence of the Red Queen as his motto in dealing with the House:
Faster. Don't try to talk.
That has been his useful working motto and it has operated with great success. I am the more glad to offer this sincere congratulation because I cannot pretend to be a whole-hearted admirer of the Bill. As I said on Second Reading, I supported the Bill in the hope of Amendment. We have had an Amendment which certainly got rid of one great objection, but the longer the Bill is before the House the more in some ways does it seem open to criticism. It is in principle an extremely simple Measure. It is a redistribution of property rights. It is a Measure that hands over to landowners a sum of £25,000,000. I should not have expected to find the Opposition desiring to increase that figure, but that would have been the effect of their arguments and their Amendments, had it been possible for them to carry them.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: The hon. Member does not do us justice. We advocate a national land policy. We stand for that to-day as we have always stood, and we think it is in the best interests of the Church.

Mr. DENMAN: The effect of the arguments and Amendments of the Opposition would have been enormously to increase the gift to the landowners. I agree that hon. Members opposite may have envisaged nationalisation of the land perhaps 10 or 20 years hence, but these added values would in the meantime have firmly settled into the structure of the land system and nationalisation would be all the more costly. That is the policy which the Opposition have adopted. I do not want to follow that line of argument, but I want to deal with what I regard as the defects in the Bill that are still capable of remedy. The Bill transfers property rights from one set of persons to another, both of them normally living in the same parish. You have two very different types of case. In the one case you have the incumbent, modestly paid, and the farmer, earning a precarious

living. In this case some transfer of income may seem eminently fair. There is a commoner type of case where the property of the incumbent is to be transferred to a neighbouring resident, wealthy squire. In that case my sympathy is not in the least with the tithe-payer. I am a small landowner and I shall have income from a poorer neighbour transferred to me and I think that is not a desirable feature in the Bill. I recognise that in making a great settlement of this kind you cannot obtain precise equity in each individual case and that you have to proceed on broad lines but this scheme does not attain the degree of fairness I should like.
There are two lines of criticism of the Bill. One is that the gift to the landowner is excessive, and the other is that the relief as between different classes of landowners is not allocated as justly as it might be. The gift to the landowners is £25,000,000. Of that amount the ultimate loss to the Church is reckoned at £14,500,000 and the immediate loss £11,000,000. By an Amendment to the Bill there was an additional charge placed upon Church funds. I welcome the concession given by the Minister to safeguard life interests, but that safeguard was at the expense of the capital fund of the Church. The Church was given power by the Amendment which was made to the Bill in Committee to utilise as revenue a portion of the capital sum transferred to her, to an amount that is expected to be some £3,000,000, for meeting the life interests of incumbents. The effect of withdrawing that £3,000,000 from the capital fund is to decrease the amount that will be available in interest to meet the annual charges in future years. Under the Bill it was reckoned that the net tithe receipt was reduced from £94 to £76 12s. 6d., but owing to the Amendment the £76 12s. 6d. has become £72 2s. 2d., which means a net loss of over 23 per cent. on the present net tithe income. I want the House to grasp the implication of that.
On October 1st next every new incumbent instituted in a parish will find that nearly one-fourth of his tithe income has gone. That is a serious matter. I have expressed the view that on the grounds of its spiritual work the Church might wisely accept the Bill, but as a business


proposition the loss is far beyond anything that it might reaonably expect to suffer in maintaining the existing system of tithe until the whole system comes to its end under the present law. It has been suggested that the Church can easily meet the situation by reorganising its parochial income. I hope that as a result of this Bill the Church will reorganise parochial income, and much good can be done to the Church in that way, but you cannot reorganise parochial funds in a year or two; it must take a number of years, and you have the immediate problem before you of incumbents taking up duty next October. I am not without hope that there may be friendly tithe-payers who will gain so substantially from the Bill that they will help to ease the immediate difficulty by paying a voluntary tithe. If there is any organised system devised for collecting a voluntary contribution of say a half year's tithe I should gladly participate.
Let me come to criticisms of the Bill from another angle. I agree entirely with the observations of the hon. and learned Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens), who has done so much both to ease the tithe situation both for his constituents and Queen Anne's Bounty. He argued that the one failure of the Bill was that it did not sufficiently meet the grievances of heavily tithed land. That I believe to be true. So far as I know the tithe problem there is no real difficulty in the lightly tithed areas, but there is real distress and hardship where tithe is high. The relief given where tithe is in excess of one-third of the assessment under Schedule B, will no doubt assist agriculturists, but I should have liked to see the figure one-fourth instead of one-third. The Bill maintains the evil of the system of growing tithe. That I believe should be abolished.
Let me consider what happens where a man has obtained relief because the tithe is in excess of one-third of Schedule B. He proceeds to improve his land. His Schedule B assessment goes up and immediately he is called upon to pay a higher tithe. The more his assessment in Schedule B rises, because he has improved his land, the higher his tithe. That is a fundamentally bad system. It discourages improvement and irritates the agriculturist. I think the Bill ought not only to fix a lower fraction for remission but should also fix a maximum

amount for tithe; xs. per acre, so that a farmer would know that however much he improved his land he would not be liable for increased tithe.
My second objection to the Bill is that it deprives us of the only way in which this can be done within the framework of the Bill. The existing term of tithe is about 75 years. The Bill shortens it to 60, and as between 60 and 75 there is very little difference in the mind of the normal landowner. What precisely is going to happen in the year 2000, who is going to pay the annuity in those days, does not matter very much to him, but by increasing the period of 60 years to 70 years I calculate that there would be set free some £125,000 a year. Unfortunately we have no figures to show what would be the aggregate cost of fixing the Schedule B figure at one-quarter, but it is clear that the sum of £125,000 would more than cover what is necessary for this concession and leave something over which would be available to do more justice to the tithe-owner.
My last criticism is that the Bill does not adequately distinguish between different types of tithe-payer. We all have sympathy with the heavy tithe-payer, with the man who bought his farm after the War under the pressure of the breaking-up of estates, and in the hope that the Corn Production Act would enable him to sustain mortgages or tithes or other charges. He deserves our sympathy. But the man who does not deserve our sympathy is the man who bought his land after the 1925 Act was in full operation, knowing that there was a charge on the land which would exist for 85 years, and in the face of that obtained his land at a lower price, I challenge anyone to produce a single case in which there was substantial tithe on land bought since 1926 where the fact was not fully taken into account in the lower price paid for the land. Why that man should now receive further benefit I find it difficult to understand. I think his case would be more than adequately recognised if he was relieved of the £4 10s. sinking fund, given the benefit of any shortening of the period there may be, and also the benefit of the Schedule B relief. These three benefits would be more than any person who bought his land since 1926 deserves. I should like


to read a sentence from the letter of a land agent who made that suggestion to me:
I should be glad if you would also see your way to move an Amendment that no land which has been purchased since the Tithe Act of 1925 became law shall participate in the proposed reductions. The purchaser knew full well when he was buying that the payment of tithe was stabilised for a period of 85 years, or such period remaining unexpired when the sale took effect.
He added an interesting and significant sentence:
It is very distressing to hear these landowners boasting that they will now sell and take the capital profit on the reduction in the amount of the tithe.
I do not know what hon. Members feel about it. Do they really think that this is the sort of case in which to transfer income from the incumbent to the neighbouring landowner? That, I submit, is the kind of case which should not be included in the full benefits of the Measure. The Bill is going to another place and I hope it will be usefully amended, for two special reasons. In the first place, they are not bound by the Financial Resolution as we were, and will be able to amend the Bill as seems to them wise, in so far as they do not add any charge to the public funds. I have no doubt that Mr. Speaker will be able to protect the privilege of this House, should any question of privilege arise. But there is a second and a more interesting advantage which the other place has over this House. Throughout the conduct of this Bill I have felt discomfort because in this House we belong almost entirely to one side. Speaker after speaker has been a tithe-payer, I myself am a tithe-payer. On the Opposition side I do not think there is a single tithe-owner.
While I do not accuse hon. Members opposite of being less able to take an impartial view of this subject than myself, I do not know—or rather, I do know—how they would feel if a Coal Mines Bill were submitted to a House containing a few dozen colliery owners and no miners at all. Would they feel that the House would be able to give quite that completely impartial and disinterested consideration to the Bill which should be given? An assembly completely immune from tithe-payers and tithe-owners alike I could trust, but I distrust my own

judgment when I am an interested person, and we have in this House very few what I may call practising tithe-owners. We experience the difficulties of tithe-payers but not of the tithe-owners. In the other House we shall have tithe-owners. I believe that one Noble Lord was burnt in effigy in one occasion and he is not likely to forget that he is a tithe-owner. In this House an ecclesiastical tithe-owner is debarred from election, but in the other House the ecclesiastical tithe-owners will be represented. Therefore I believe that in the other place we shall be able to get fresh light on this controversy from the point of view of the tithe-payer and the tithe-owner alike, and I hope it will lead to a fairer settlement of the whole question. It is only fair to warn the other place that this House would not agree to anything which would upset the handiwork of the Minister, but within the limits I have indicated I suggest that the Bill can be made fairer, and I hope it will return, to us a better Measure than it is now.

5.57 p.m.

Mr. MacLAREN: I do not know that I have very much sympathy with the hon. Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman) in his regrets at the absence of the views of tithe-owners, but I notice that he is optimistic that in another place it will come to an end and that the views of tithe-owners will be heard. There have been repeated votes of thanks to the Minister of Agriculture for the expeditious way in which he has piloted the Bill through the House of Commons. It is a strange accident that in recent years the destinies of the Church of England have almost entirely fallen into the hands of Scotsmen. The Archbishop of Canterbury is the son of a Presbyterian clergyman, the Archbishop of York is of Scottish descent, and in this House a representative from the same country is fixing the destinies of tithe-payers and tithe-owners. Perhaps it is because of his national detachment that he has been able to look on this problem with a certain amount of judicial calm, but being a member of the party opposite he has, of course, seen that vested interests have not altogether been uprooted or challenged by the Bill.
I want to impeach the Government for their conduct in this matter from the beginning. Commissioners were


appointed to inquire into the whole question. Their report was finished and in the hands of the Government, but was withheld for months from this House. There is evidence on the face of the Bill that during the time this report was in the hands of the Government and not divulged to the House, consultations were held with interested parties. I charge the Government with deceitfulness and dishonesty in the matter. They present us with a watertight Bill embodying their terms with the tithe-owners. As evidence that they have entered into this plot consciously I do not blame the Minister for whom I have great respect; I impeach the Government. Not merely did they come here with a Bill which fundamentally has not been changed by one comma since it was introduced, but they also introduced a Financial Resolution as well. The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) who is one of the ablest Members of the House and has devoted much attention to this Bill, tried his best to get a slight amendment of the financial provisions, but was always reminded by the Chairman that he was tied by the Financial Resolution.

Mr. TURTON: The Minister was kind enough to accept two of my Amendments.

Mr. MacLAREN: I am speaking of the Friday morning you attempted to get Amendments across the Floor until you had to resume your seat.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir Dennis Herbert): The hon. Member must address me.

Mr. MacLAREN: I am taking a privilege which is very often taken by hon. Members, but I will not do it again. It is no good any attempt being made to say it is not true that the free deliberation of this House was not hedged about by the Financial Resolution. That gives strength to the conviction that the Bill was a fixed and definite Measure before it came to the House, and that there was a determined attempt—as indeed we have seen—to push it through the House without very much change. If that is called Parliamentary Government, the democratic analysis of proposals before the House of Commons, I am not in agreement with it. To say that the Bill passed through the Committee in record time is absolutely true. I do not think I spoke

more than once or twice, and even then I only partially explored the Bill. It was a matter of listening to the dreary discussion of the Clauses of the Bill, knowing that one could do nothing with it, and one attended the Committee as a matter of form. Naturally the Bill went through in record time, since no good could have been effected by rising in Committee and fighting it.
I am sure I shall be excused if again I ask the question, What is tithe? What is this thing we are talking about? Who is the owner of it? We are constantly discussing tithe-owners in connection with this Bill. Tithe is a contribution from the land to maintain education, the poor, the clergy, the Church, and so on. It is a tenth of the proceeds of the land. Who is the owner of that tenth when it is surrendered? In recent times the Christian Church appropriated the tithe, which existed long before the Christian Church was heard of. Later on, this House, in its wisdom, made a mad attempt to give this ever-changing quantity called tithe a fixed expression in terms of money, and instituted the tithe rentcharge, which was paid over to the Church. Let me say at once, so that there can be no misrepresentation as to how we feel on these benches, that if the tithe rentcharge were paid not specifically by the users of the land, but by those who are in occupation of the land, I would support its payment on condition that it was a tenth part of the annual value and that it was used for communal purposes, such as education and public enlightenment and, if you like, the maintenance of the structures built, not by the people who are now appropriating the tithe rentcharge, but for the maintenance of those structures which were built in other times when there was more religion and more devotion.
Now we have this constant talk about the tithe-owner. One would think that the Act of Supremacy had no significance in this House. By the Act of Supremacy the Church in England became a State Department, owned and controlled by this House, and as it is a State Department those who are holding office in it cannot claim as their own any property belonging to it. The tithe-owner is usually taken to be the clergyman who receives the tithe. He is nothing of the kind. If the Act of Supremacy has any meaning to it, there can be no tithe-owners in the


real sense of the term. I admit, of course, that by the Law of Property Act, 1925, the tithe rentcharge is sustained as a legal estate on the land, but there again is evidence of the wit and wisdom of the lawyers. Tithe ownership resides in this House. It is in the hands of the State and cannot be divorced from the control of the House and handed over, as apparently is the suggestion in this Bill, to an ownership separate from the State. We come to this pass. We have a State Department, owned and controlled by the State, and owing final allegiance to the Crown. We are not told that it is a State Church, but that it has a property claim as distinct from Parliament and the State, and that therefore, if there is to be an extinguishment of the tithe rent-charge it shall be the duty of Parliament to do—what? As I have said before it is now apparently the duty of Parliament to do one of the most villainous things which this House has ever been called upon to do.
Hitherto the tithe rentcharge has had to be secured for the tithe-owners by means of collections from the landowners. Owing to the difficulty created by Parliament in attempting to give a fixed monetary expression to an ever-changing quantity, a reaction set in and the tithe-payers began to protest. The vested interests of the Church said that that could not go on for very long without endangering their income. Hence this Bill. I want every hon. Member who intends to vote for the Bill to note that in doing so he is assisting the Church to step back from its real responsibilities. Under this Bill, the Church is to be allowed to step back from its responsibility of securing the tithe rentcharge, and the State is to step into the position and wield the scourge that is to screw and wring tithe out of the tithe-payers of the country for the next 60 years. The Church is to go off into security with a gilt-edged security in its pocket. It passes into the sublime sanctuary of holiness on security, leaving the State in the forefront to carry on the fight with the distressed tithe-payers. That is the position which will be created when this Bill is passed.
What was the language of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture? He said, repeating the language of the report, that we must

immediately divorce the Church from the tithe-payers. Why? I thought the duty of the Church was to keep in touch with every member of the community. No, we must divorce the Church from the tithe-payers because of the trouble that is arising in the attempt to collect tithes on behalf of the Church. Here we have a Bill which—again using the language of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture—calls upon the State, the general taxpayers, to assume responsibility for the interest and the sinking fund of this capital sum. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary heard the speech made at that time by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens), who said it would not be very long before the tithe-payers would not pay anything. The general taxpayers are now handing over this vast sum to the Church and they will lose all claim on the tithe-payers in the event of such a situation arising. I believe that is what will happen.
The commission recommended that the liquidation should be carried out in 40 years. It is very pathetic to note that the commission said that 40 years would be a commendable period, because it would at least bring it within the lifetime of many of the tithe-payers now living. But the Government insisted on 60 years. Why 60 years? Because rates have to be paid. Hitherto rates have had to be paid on tithe rentcharge, and if there was anything insisted upon in one rating law after another which was passed in this House it was that the tithe-owner should pay rates upon his tithe rentcharge. Now, by a polite manoeuvre, that has been changed right round the other way. There will be an extension from 40 years to 60 years to allow enough money to be gathered into the fund to enable the Government to be in a position to pay compensation to the local authorities for the revenue they will lose by these rates remissions.
It is interesting to look back on the Bill as it was printed. A provision is made for an Exchequer contribution of £685,000 a year for 60 years. This estimated the rates charge, plus little savings in administration. There is one point to which I have already referred and on which I hope the Minister will have something to say. I did not raise it in Committee because I wanted the


Bill to pass as expeditiously as possible. It is the novel procedure by which under this Bill local authorities are to receive compensation because they are losing revenue as a result of the abolition of the tithe rentcharge. That is something which has never been done before, and if the practice which is now introduced in this Bill is to be condoned, I should like every hon. Member who represents a distressed area to go to his constituency, to find out the number of depleted hereditaments and what the local authorities have lost in rates, and then to come back and demand compensation.
The next point which seems to have caused a great deal of heartburning is that after the enforcement of this Act the tithe-payer will be subject to the action of the law courts. He will be a debtor to His Majesty the King. I wish the Government luck in that procedure. It is a procedure which, I think, is inevitable, and when once the principle embodied in the Bill has been put into operation, I can see no other machinery in the hands of the Government. A national debt is being created against the tithe-payer, and the only way in which the debt can be secured is by using the stringency of the law. The Government have handed over to the Church a gilt-edged security and have taken on the duty of wielding a whip and scourge for the next 40 years in order to exact the payments in lieu of the lump sums from the tithe-payers. As I have said, it is difficult normally to express one's opinion about this Bill. It means the paying of a vast sum of money to people who are not the rightful owners of the tithe. It means the passing over of public money which may never be redeemed in the future.
I would be the last to complain about the expenditure of public money, if it meant that we were permeating the community with religious or philosophic ideas and bringing the community back to the fundamentals upon which society must stand, if it is to be saved from destruction. I would be the first to subscribe to a proposal that this House should devote large sums of money to the study of the mental condition of the people outside. But with the handing-over of these vast sums to the Church, I invite the Church now to go in for a little stock-taking. I ask whether the Church,

in view of the large sums which it now holds and the sums which it anticipates as a result of this Bill, is interesting itself in doing anything to clarify the minds of the people of this country to-day. I will not go too far into that subject, but I think we have a right to ask that question when we are told that it is essential that the Church should be maintained, even by means of this Bill and the expenditure of this money, in order that it may minister to the spiritual welfare of the State. For God's sake let us look at the spiritual condition of the State, and ask ourselves whether there is any religion hanging about in these days, when, even the Bishop of Durham last week was out as a recruiting agent—and he no doubt would be an enthusiast for this Bill. That brings us back to the fundamentals of this question.
It may be asked, what would we do in these circumstances? Tithe ought to have been merged long since in the value of the land, because it is a part of the land value. It should never have been allowed to continue as a separate contribution to the Church or anybody else. Whatever pretentions the Church may have to a claim upon tithe, the lay tithe-owner has no claim whatever. Yet he is to be compensated. I should like to see the lay tithe-owner who would come into this House and assure us that he was giving spiritual healing to the State. But the lay tithe-owner is to be compensated and that is to be done, we are told, because of the spiritual necessities of the State. He is a tithe-owner. Whatever may be said about the farmer and the landowner, in many cases they have provided buildings and improvements on the land and it can be said without challenge that the labourer on the land does a great deal to make the land a possible paying proposition but the so-called tithe-owner—tithe appropriator would be a better name—does nothing to agriculture except to act as an impediment upon it. He is a constant drag on it and the commissioners themselves in their report, in no partisan spirit, say so. I suggest that it would be an easement to agriculture to have this Bill carried and to relieve agriculture of the constant drain of tithe payments.
Apart from criticism of the Bill which may seem to be purely negative, let me express a positive opinion. As I have


said, tithe ought to have been merged long ago in the annual value of the land. The House knows that some of us hold strong views on what ought to happen then to the lump sum value of the land. If the Church or any other institution in the State is performing a great communal service to the State, it is the State's duty to set apart a section of the national finances, rightfully, for the maintenance of such institution. That could have been done long ago, but the procedure here adopted is based upon a false conception of what tithe is and a fallacious acceptance of who the tithe-owner really is.
Last but not least, let me say that I do not know how the State Church of England has the audacity and the deceitfulness in 1936, through this Measure, to capitalise an age-long tribute to her own immediate benefit, disregarding entirely the fact that the whole community in the State, as taxpayers, will be held responsible for the final redemption of this vast sum. If that is Christianity, then I have another view on the matter. But let the Church settle that with its own conscience to-day. We on this side cannot do anything now. It is too late to stop the Bill passing, but I would say, from my place in this House now, that the men outside who are to be looked upon now as debtors to His Majesty the King will be called upon to surrender the instruments, the information, the documents which will be necessary before the commission can have the machinery in full working order by 2nd October. I hope the tithe-payers will make that as difficult a task as any Minister ever had to undertake.
It is necessary that the people of this country should see, in all its nakedness, the truth that lies behind this Bill and realise who are affected by it—those who are acting not by any pious methods, not even going out into the parks to hold demonstration. I would like to tell the Conservative party that they have made a first-class blunder with this Bill. Heretofore they have been able to lull the agricultural constituencies to sleep. They have been able to chloroform them with millions of pounds of subsidies. I say to hon. Members opposite, "You have aroused them by this Bill and you are going to lose agricultural seats as a result of it." I trust and hope that the

tithe-payers outside will act in no uncertain manner and that they will do everything to make this Measure an impossibility by 2nd October. I hope that the Bill will be rejected by those who have decent intentions with regard to honesty and fair dealing in public affairs in this House.

6.23 p.m.

Major DORMAN-SMITH: I am afraid that in this case, my voice is to be an echo of those breakers upon the rocks about which the Parliamentary Secretary spoke, because I cannot support the Third Reading of the Bill. I regret that very much from a personal point of view, because I hate to be at variance with my party and I know that, like Odysseus, the ordinary private Member who ventures to go counter to the policy of the Government is apt to run into troubled waters. I feel I have to make it clear that the organised farmers of this country will not, and cannot, accept this Measure as an equitable or final settlement of the tithe problem. If the Bill goes through as a final settlement, then, indeed, it will be one which has been forced on the farmers and not accepted by them.
I regret that the Government have not used this opportunity to produce a settlement which would be equitable and final. I believe they have had the opportunity, and that the opportunity will not arise again for some time. Had they approached the subject from a different angle, had they given us a fairer appreciation of the tithe situation and presented it in a different way, I believe that all Members would have been glad to assist in making a real settlement. There is not one Member, however divorced he may be from agriculture, who does not realise that here is a great problem, right outside party politics, which is worth solving for its own sake, and I believe we would all have co-operated in arriving at a settlement even though it would have meant some financial assistance from the Treasury.
In the Preamble to the Bill the Government say that it is based on the Royal Commission's report. So it is, with one or two variations. One variation is that it puts on the tithe-payers a sum of £55,000,000 which was never contemplated by the Royal Commission. It may have been very difficult for the Minister to get over the problem of that sum. It


must have taxed his resourcefulness to find how he was going to do it. He has done it by putting the sum on to the tithe-payers, and the tithe-payers object. That sum is, of course, for the rates and for the poor clergy. I would say that the tithe-payers never had to bear that responsibility and they will never accept it as a responsibility which ought to be theirs. On that account I cannot support the Bill. That £55,000,000 would not have been very much from a Treasury point of view, spread over a long period of years, but it means a lot to people who have to find the money from what are in most cases very slender means.
The Government have commended the Bill on the ground that it will put no further charge on the taxpayer. The Government's attitude seems rather callous towards those in many districts who have, somehow or other, to produce this money out of their pockets. The most that its best friend can say about the Bill is that it is some sort of rough compromise and probably quite a good compromise, inasmuch as it pleases nobody, but that strikes me as an unconvincing argument for a big Government Measure. It is true that the Bill gives some immediate relief to those who need relief. The "Times" on Saturday pointed out that it gave the tithe-payers a reduction of 16.8 per cent. on their present payments, but that is not the point. It is no good to say to the tithe-payers in this case, "You are lucky because you are getting a reduction." A reduction from what? A reduction from a figure to which the tithe-payers never agreed—the figure in the 1925 Act, which they always thought to be iniquitous. It is like saying to a debtor, "I will let you off so much on the debt," when he does not acknowledge the debt. It is very cold comfort to offer a reduction if in the mind of the debtor, the debt has been forced upon him, is not of his own contracting, and is fantastically high. That is how the tithe-payers feel as far as the figure of £99 11s. 2d. is concerned; the tithe-payers will not agree that even the reduction now proposed brings it down to a fair figure.
We are asked what would be a fair figure. If the Government withdraw the Bill and talk to us about what would be a fair figure, we shall be glad to give them all the advice we can, but we have

not had much opportunity of discussing that aspect of the matter. The "Times" went on to say that if we were passing a Bill which would relieve the Income Tax payer, say of 1s. in the £, we would all be pleased but there is a great difference between Income Tax and tithe. Income Tax, in some degree at all events, is based on ability to pay. If there is no income there is no tax. Time was when much the same could have been said of tithe; when, if there was no produce from the land, the tithe-owner received nothing. But the Bill alters all that once and for all. It entirely divorces payment from the ability of the farmer to pay out of the proceeds of his land.
I do not know what this House would think if we were to-day passing a Measure which said to all Income Tax payers, "We are going to stabilise Income Tax once and for all, but it will not depend on whether you can pay it, on your income, or on the state of your business; if you cannot pay it out of income, then you must pay it out of capital and out of your savings." The question of personal liability is one of the worst features of the Bill and one which causes the most resentment throughout the tithe-paying areas. The tithe-payers feel that if the Government had got the figure down to a fair figure which they could pay, having regard to the proceeds of their farms, the Government would never need this personal liability. It would be a debt which they would readily pay, but it was because the Government knew that in certain districts they would not be able to pay it, that they had put on this personal liability. The tithe-payers realise that there must be security for this loan, but it seems to them that in putting on this personal liability the Government are, to use the tithe-payers' own expression, out-Shylocking Shylock, and they do not like it. For those reasons I am afraid I cannot possibly support the Third Reading.
We know that in certain heavily tithed areas the Bill will not give the measure of relief which is necessary. The Minister of Agriculture and the Parliamentary Secretary have time and time again mentioned that the National Farmers' Union have said that one-third was a reasonable figure. If they would do us the honour of reading a little bit more of our evidence, they would see that


that was linked up with having some special machinery to deal with hard cases. That was part and parcel of the evidence, and beyond that they would see that it was also linked up with a plea that there should not be this personal liability. If we had got some machinery to deal with hard cases, I feel that there would be a lot of difference in our attitude towards the Bill. Time and time again the Minister has been asked, but there has been no possibility of getting this through at all. Therefore, I believe, with other speakers, that there will still be a lot of bitterness left, and I am very regretful about that.
Since the Government came in they have put on to agriculture a great many experiments, some of which have not been altogether popular, and if the farmers had followed their natural and their first instincts, I do not think many of those experiments would have seen the light of day, but I and many of my colleagues on the National Farmers Union have spent many weary days trapsing the countryside, trying to break down the opposition and to give the Government a fair field for their agricultural policy. Whether we have done right or wrong, time alone will show. I hope that we have done right, but in regard to many measures which the farmers distrusted, when we have explained them and tried to get at the Government's attitude, we have gradually broken down the opposition, and by argument, coupled with the despair of the farmers themselves, we have managed to get the measures adopted by the farming community. In this case, however, it has been entirely different. At the beginning, except in the heavily tithed areas, the farmers were inclined to accept the Bill without much question—there was not much interest in it—but as understanding has come and they have realised the full implications of the Bill, opposition has grown steadily, and at the present moment I believe it is still on the upgrade. As one hon. Member has said, I think the Government are making a profound mistake in shifting the bitterness from Queen Anne's Bounty on to the Government's own head. Because I agree with that opposition which is growing, and because I believe the farmers have a good case as tithe-payers, I cannot possibly support the Third Reading of the Bill.

Mr. SPEAKER: Sir Edward Ruggles-Brise.

Mr. HARDIE: On a point of Order. Since it has become apparent that the total contribution as a result of this Bill will amount to £41,000,000 in 60 years, and since the people of Scotland are still taxpayers, why have not Scotsmen the chance even to talk about what will fall on the Scottish taxpayers?

Mr. EDE: What chance should we have of speaking on a Scottish Measure?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is hardly a point of Order.

6.35 p.m.

Colonel Sir EDWARD RUGGLES-BRISE: I should like to deal with the speech which fell from the hon. Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman), which I do not think should go unanswered. Throughout the whole of that speech was the suggestion that this Bill was a gift to the tithe-payers. If it is a gift to the tithe-payers then obviously the gift has come from somebody, and presumably the hon. Member means that the gift comes from the tithe-owners. It does not come from the State, for instance; there is no Exchequer contribution. I must really bring the hon. Member right down to it, and I will put this to him: He has repeated time and time again, not only on the Third Reading, but on the Second Reading and in Committee upstairs, that this Bill is a gift to the tithe-payers, and I challenge him directly on that. I am telling him that if it is a gift to the tithe-payers, obviously the gift must come from somebody, and he suggests that it comes from the tithe-owners. I take it that he will not challenge that.

Mr. DENMAN: I really have not time to go into this controversy, but if the hon. and gallant Member will refer the figures given by the Minister of Agriculture, he will see that it arises partly from the tithe-owners and partly from the use of the credit of the State.

Sir E. RUGGLES-BRISE: Obviously the hon. Member does not wish to give any reply to my perfectly straight question. The Government, a certain situation having arisen, considered it of such importance as to make it necessary to ask His Majesty to appoint a Royal Commision to look into the whole question of tithe. This House would not have so


acted had there not been grounds for so doing. That Royal Commission was appointed, and what was the nature of its report? Did it report in the sense that there should be a gift made to the tithe-payers? No. It reported in the sense that it was quite clear, from all the evidence which it had received, that for years past the tithe-payer had been paying too much. That, in a sentence, is a summary of the Royal Commission's report. The hon. Member for Central Leeds surely will not challenge the integrity or the good faith of the members of the Royal Commission, and if he cannot do that, then he must accept this fact, that the report of the commission in effect says that the tithe-payers have been paying too much and that the amount which they have been compelled by Parliament to pay must be reduced by Parliament. Is it therefore fair for the hon. Member to say that this Bill constitutes a gift to the tithe-payers? I refer him to the report of the Royal Commission.
I would also like to say a word or two to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Petersfield (Major Dorman-Smith), with whom on all matters as a rule I find myself in the closest agreement, as I hope and have no doubt I shall in the future again, but on this particular matter of whether or not this Bill should receive its Third Reading, I do not find myself in agreement with my hon. and gallant Friend. I would again refer to the report of the Royal Commission, which made three main recommendations. First of all, there was to be a reduction of the amount of tithe rentcharge to £91 11s. 2d.; secondly, the Royal Commission reported that the relief of tithe should operate where redemption annuity exceeds one-third instead of two-thirds of the Schedule B assessment; and, thirdly, the Royal Commission recommended that the period of redemption should be reduced from 76 to 40 years.
Whatever shortcomings this Bill may have—and in my view it has a great many—we must come back to this solid fact, that the Government have accepted two of those recommendations wholly and the third in part, and if there be any virtue at all attaching to the setting up of a Royal Commission, and its report being received by the Government, I think we must, when we come to the final

decision, go back to the fundamentals of the case. I think we should, therefore, judge this Bill and decide whether or not to give it the Third Reading on whether it does in fact go a reasonable way towards meeting the recommendations of the Royal Commission. As I have just said, on two recommendations it does that, and it goes some way towards meeting the third. That being so, let us consider whether or not the tithe-payer will be wise to accept this Bill. At all events, although falling far short of his expectations, there will be some immediate relief in the very next half-yearly payment of tithe. It is a definite reduction, though I, for one, think it is not large enough, and it is a reduction which will commence to run at once. I rather think the tithe-payer will be wise to consider that a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush and that possibly half a loaf is better than no bread.
I agree entirely with my hon. and gallant Friend that that may be very cold comfort, but let us at least be practical. We have to remember that in so far as certain recommendations are concerned, the Government have gone some way, and that there is a definite relief in part. I, therefore, think the tithe-payers would be ill-advised to reject this Bill, though I share with them grave misgivings as to it, but I think that we, as hon. Members of this House, should feel it our duty to give the Third Reading to the Bill on the grounds which I have given, that we set up a Royal Commission, that we received its recommendations, and that, although the Government have not followed them by any means to the full, yet they have followed them a good long way. Therefore, I think the duty of this House will be to give the Third Reading to the Bill.

6.44 p.m.

Mr. BELLENGER: After listening to the hon. and gallant Member for Maldon (Sir E. Ruggles-Brise), I cannot help feeling that there has been some backsliding on his part. The Parliamentary Secretary, in his opening remarks, gave a classical illustration when referring to his chief, the Minister of Agriculture. He compared him to that classical subject Ulysses, and rather likened him to a wily navigator. In fact, I think he called him a wily navigator, and he told us that the Minister of Agriculture, unlike


Ulysses, had not lost his crew. I do not think that the Minister of Agriculture is going to lose his crew, particularly after the speech of the hon. and gallant Member. The Minister, no doubt, realises that it will be necessary for him to retain his crew to enable him to steer his very frail barque to port, namely, the Third Reading. All through the Committee stage the right hon. Gentleman has had a very rebellious and mutinous crew, and on Friday they even raised the Jolly Roger to the masthead and revolted to the extent of a large proportion, considering the numbers in attendance, against the Government. No doubt since then the right hon. Gentleman has threatened them with the yard arm, and I have not the slightest doubt that they will come to heel to-night.
I want to deal with the figure of £91 11s. 2d. which the owners of tithe rentcharge will be paid if this Bill goes through. This figure is far too high, and that is the grievance of those who are demonstrating against the Bill. The Parliamentary Secretary levelled the charge against the party on these benches that we were out to confiscate the whole of the tithe rentcharge now enjoyed by the tithe-owners, and the hon. and learned Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens) rather suggested that we were out to loot the Church. That is entirely inaccurate. It is neither our case nor the case of those who are demonstrating against the Bill. Let the House remember what the tithe rentcharge actually is, and what this annuity will be. Tithe rentcharge is merely tithe, and since the Act of 1836 it was based not on the value of the land, but on the produce of the land. So when the Minister suggests, as he does in this Bill, that the tithe rent annuity shall be fixed at a certain figure capitalised on what I suggest are false premises, he is doing something never previously suggested by the Church in days gone by. They could take only one-tenth of the actual produce of the land, but in future that is not going to be the case. An hon. Member has reminded the House that in the collection of Income Tax—and when the commission ceases to function the Inland Revenue authorities will take over the collection of the tithe rent annuities—the tax is based on the actual income enjoyed by the taxpayer. To-day, however, we are taking a certain set of

figures and stereotyping them for 60 years ahead, with the exception of certain minor alterations which the Minister hopes it will be possible to make in future owing to certain economies that will take place.
When I listened to the hon. Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman) stating his case and asking for the full bond, I rather thought that his suave manner of speech and benevolent appearance belied his intentions. He reminded me of that character in the "Merchant of Venice" who asked for the full bond and nothing but the bond. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Leeds, who speaks in a special capacity—the House knows what that capacity is—is not only asking for his pound of flesh but for the blood that goes with it. Let me give him one illustration which may appeal to him, and it is one of several that I could give. When the Parliamentary Secretary talks of the owners of 200 acres, I would remind him that that is a fair-sized farm. The average, I believe, in Nottinghamshire is about 90 acres. The case I have in mind is that of a married man with two young children who bought a smallholding of 40 acres—

Mr. DENMAN: When?

Mr. BELLENGER: In a dear time. I am not certain of the year, but probably it was within a few years after the War. The tithe was £14 per annum. The man worked the holding himself, but later, through ill-health, he could no longer work it and had to go into a cottage and let the farm. There he kept fowls, a pig and a cow and he was just able to manage with his wife's help. In the depth of the agricultural depression he could not get a tenant for the farm, and for three years it went out of cultivation. The tithe, however, still remained on the land. Queen Anne's Bounty went to court, but they did not distrain, for the obvious reason that there was nothing on which to distrain. Previous to this Bill, the only way an owner could get his tithe rentcharge was by distraining, not on the land itself, but on what was on the land. The court orders in this case were kept alive and the family lived in extreme poverty. The woman had to take in washing and go strawberry picking. Eventually, the man obtained a tenant at a fair rent, and, as the


tenant wanted all the land, the smallholder was not able to keep his pig and his few fowls, and he had to live on the rent. With the income he was able to get, which amounted to about 5s. 6d. a week, he managed to peg along. Queen Anne's Bounty applied for a rent receivership and the judge made the order. The order was not enforced because it was realised that without the rent the tenant would not have been able to live. The smallholder then came to terms with Queen Anne's Bounty.
Queen Anne's Bounty know that when this Bill goes through a commission will be set up and arrears will come before it, and they will have the power—and I am glad that they will have, and I thank the right hon. Gentleman for including it in the Bill—to remit all or part of the arrears. Queen Anne's are in this case pressing for settlement of the arrears. I will say in fairness that they are not asking for all, but are asking for a proportion of them. If this case goes before the commission later on this smallholder will probably be relieved of all the arrears.

Mr. DENMAN: Will the hon. Gentleman therefore support the Bill?

Mr. BELLENGER: I support that part of it, certainly, but my main case is that this £91 11s. 2d. is too much, and that in the case I am quoting the arrears should have been wiped out. The land had not been cultivated, but the tithe continued. There are certain other points I could put before the House in support of my argument, but perhaps it would be as well, as we are dealing with matters of an ecclesiastical nature, if I quoted not only the quick but the dead. As regards the quick, I would like to quote from the Minority Report of the Royal Commission, which was presented by an eminent gentlemen, Sir Leonard Coates. In his conclusion he says:
The surprising thing about the tithe system in this country, of which tithe rent-charge is the present form, is not that it has provoked recurrent discontent, but that it has endured so long. Successive generations have contributed their meed of regulation and pruning, and many times the belief has been expressed that a final solution of its problems had been achieved; but new conditions have repeatedly created new difficulties and a sense of injustice in its incidence.

I suggest to the Minister that the conditions which he wishes to stereotype in this Bill will not remain static. They are constantly changing, and in the course of the 60 years which are envisaged under the Bill they can change still further unless the Minister gives far more subsidies than he is doing to agriculture. Let me quote also the dead. I refer to Lord Palmerston, who was then Prime Minister, who is quoted in this report as saying in 1856:
I do not agree with those who maintain that what is called the property of the Church is so strictly belonging to the ministers of religion that Parliament cannot deal with it. Undoubtedly the property of the Church belongs to the State, and the State, represented by its proper organ, the Legislature, has the power and the right of dealing with that property as the circumstances of the times may require.
The main objection that I have to the Bill—and it is the main objection of the tithe-payers—is that the figure of £91 11s. 2d. has been wrongly based on figures, which can be, and have been, proved by the Minister of Agriculture, but which I say are entirely wrong. We are putting £91 11s. 2d. in this Bill for 60 years until tithe is redeemed, but on the figures given in the report for 1935, the proper amount per £100 of tithe rent-charge should be £80. For these reasons I shall certainly vote against the Third Reading, and I am glad to see that at least one member of the crew has told the Minister that he will not support him in bringing his craft into another place, but will also vote against the Third Reading.

6.58 p.m.

Mr. ALEXANDER: I do not intend to detain the House for long because there has been such a number of speakers already and they have shown the remarkable fact that this Measure, which is of such great importance to the Church from its point of view, and to agriculture from another point of view, is going to be read a Third time, apparently under pressure from the Government, without one speech giving it 100 per cent. support. There has not been one utterance from the other side, since the Parliamentary Secretary opened with his humorous interlude, which has given unqualified support to the Bill. Even the hon. Member who represents Central Leeds (Mr. Denman), and also a certain aspect


of Church government, has not put a complete "O.K." on the Bill. In these circumstances, it does not seem to me to be necessary to address the House at any length. If the great machine majority of the Government will vote for this Bill any way, one cannot appeal sufficiently to the consciences of hon. Members to lead them to alter their minds. It is true that the hon. and gallant Member for Petersfield (Major Dorman-Smith) has made a gallant and courageous speech on behalf of the agricultural community, but many of those who claim that they specially represent agriculture have been extraordinarily agile in the way they have been running away from the challenge of the crack of the Government whip. One need not stress that any further, but it shows that we on our side of the House, at any rate, have been adopting the right view in opposing this Bill all through, although we have been twitted by the Parliamentary Secretary to-day and by the Minister on previous occasions for our attitude.
The Minister and his Department have all through the discussions on this Bill assumed that there was no other way out of the serious situation in which the tithe-payers have been placed except their own proposals. That point of view we deny. It is not the only way out. The Government have never given adequate consideration to the well-informed and excellently argued Minority Report. Revelations which are given there of the manner in which the existing income from tithe rentcharge is divided among existing recipients show that by a proper discipline within the Church, and a proper redistribution of the Church income, the real burdens which have fallen to be borne so unjustly by the tithe-payers could have been relieved without adopting the proposals put forward in the Bill. We challenge the statement of the Government that this form of legislation was the only one which could have been adopted.
We say that the Government cannot hope to obtain a permanent settlement on the basis of this Bill. You only need to listen to the case put forward by the hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) and the hon. and gallant Member for Petersfield to know that the Bill cannot be a lasting settlement, to know that even though you are

transferring the duty of collection from Queen Anne's Bounty to the Inland Revenue authorities, you will never break the spirit of resistance among the tithe-payers during the next 60 years. The fact that you are changing from a charge on the produce of the land to a charge on the personal possessions of the persons charged with making this contribution, will mean a spirit of resentment as well as a daily exercise of injustice which cannot live. It would be very much better if the Government, even at this late stage, would make up their minds to secure a complete revision of the basis of this legislation and move to a sound scheme for the removal of the injustice among tithe-payers themselves.
When I hear remarks that have been made about the attitude of the Opposition being in favour of making gifts to landowners, I am more amused than anything else. We feel that if you are to get a lasting settlement you can only do it on a communal basis. We say that there is no special right of any section of any religious faith in this country to be supported in this way. Those of us who are Nonconformists have to support our own particular schools of religion and philosophy. You will only get a settlement of this problem on a communal basis in which the land is dealt with in a national sense. To suggest that you should settle the tithe-payer with a redemption period of 60 years is totally unreasonable. If you are prepared to accept the communal view and to move to national ownership, to create a central land fund, to create within the operation of that fund a reasonable period for the amortisation of any past rights which may be admitted, and to see to it that any return to those with the rights is used by them for communal and not for small sectional things, then you can hope to get a permanent and lasting basis.
This Bill may bring a certain amount of immediate injustice to certain incumbents, on the lines of the speech by the hon. Member for Central Leeds, but it certainly brings no adequate or immediate relief to agriculture in its position of need to-day, and it is likely to accentuate the sense of injustice by passing from the charge on the produce of the land to the possessions of the persons individually, this charge in the future. For all these reasons we feel that we should be


able to ask the House irrespective of party to go into the Lobby against this Bill. It is the only chance to prevent this injustice being done. It was impossible from the moment the Government drafted the Financial Resolution governing the House in its discussion of the Bill to get an adequate Amendment to any of the major provisions affecting tithe-payers. If you want to keep from doing injustice to the tithe-payers, and to leace the door open for real relief from their pressing burdens, the only duty—even for the Conservative friends of agriculture—is to vote for the rejection of the Bill.

7.8 p.m.

Mr. ELLIOT: We approach the final stage of a Measure which has engaged the intense attention of the experts for nearly two years, and now of the House of Commons for many weeks. It has been treated by the House and by the Committee upstairs in a non-party spirit, and a spirit desirous of finding as far as posible a settlement of this great and difficult problem. Let me deal shortly with the arguments raised to-night, not on party grounds but on the ground of how we can best deal with the situation that confronts us a short time before we pass this Bill to another place. It has been said that the difficulties of the Bill are shown by the fact that almost every speaker to-night had some criticism or other. I accept that. It is not a party measure where one side can beat the party drum and get the enthusiastic cheers of his own supporters, and equally the enthusiastic roar of denunciation from the other side. Even the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) welcomed this Bill in respect of certain of its provisions which he said would bring relief to a small farm which he knew, and would bring relief in respect of arrears and in respect of ultimate extinguishment.

Mr. BELLENGER: My case was that these arrears would not be considered if Queen Anne's Bounty insisted on the collection before the commission takes over.

Mr. ELLIOT: Is that not an argument for passing the Bill forthwith, for bringing the Commission into action? The question of arrears is one which may lead to great trouble in the countryside, and it is for that reason that I have more than

once asked the House and the Committee to work swiftly and to remove the injustices. The Committee and the House have worked swiftly and they have worked well. The arguments brought up are that the difficulties of agriculture will not be removed by this Bill. No, they will not, nor did I ever claim that they would. They can only be removed by general measures for the prosperity of agriculture as a whole. It is useless to concentrate the whole of our relief on landowners many of whom do not have to pay a tithe. Landowners and tenant farmers who do not happen to pay tithes have their own difficulties. It is true that the difficulties with which we are concerned here are mostly in the East Anglian lands, but it must be remembered that time and again I have had to come to Parliament for reliefs which specially interested the East Anglian farmers. They may have been resented by other farmers, but they would have been doubly resented if they had relieved some farmers in East Anglia and not others.
I have the responsibility for agriculture, and I say that the fact that the State has underwritten agriculture by £70,000,000 is an earnest that the State recognises the needs of the future of agriculture, and recognises the responsibility which lies upon it to keep that industry solvent. That is our great responsibility which I ask the House to take. This Parliament and future Parliaments will realise the necessity of maintaining agriculture in a solvent condition, and I believe that through general measures for agriculture, and not through special measures, will prosperity be given to agriculture. We have done our utmost to deal with the special difficulties of agriculture and of the tithe-payer. We have a not uninteresting example in Wales of the special difficulties of the tithe-payer which would not be solved if we adopted certain of the proposals which have been laid before us to-night for special relief concentrated in highly-tithed areas. Wales is not a highly-tithed area, and a bitter complaint would go up from Wales if relief were subtracted from that country and concentrated in East Anglia. It is said that the difficulty would all be removed if farmers, agriculturists and landowners felt that all the revenues here were being devoted to communal purposes. But they are being devoted to communal purposes in Wales and I can


imagine that owners of heavily-tithed land in East Anglia, like owners of lightly-tithed land in Wales, would feel no relief whatever if revenue derived from their land were to be concentrated on public instead of private aims in future.
Hon. Members have said, "Why deal with the future at all? Why have this element of sinking fund in the Bill? "The sinking fund element is of great value in Wales. If it had been imported into tithe at the beginning it would already have gone a considerable way to wiping out tithe altogether. In fact if Parliament had grappled with it in that way in 1836, when it first took up this subject, tithe would long since have been extinguished. Sinking fund payments have wiped tithes off agriculture in great countries on the Continent. The sinking fund element is of great value, especially, on heavily-tithed land, where the extinction of the tithe, and not its diminution by a certain fraction, is the chief thing to which proprietors of the land look forward. The diminution will reflect itself before very long in the ultimate value of the land, and in benefits to the tithe-payers over and above the immediate relief given by the reduction in the annual charge. The farm to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw referred will benefit as sinking fund begins to run; the benefit will be reflected in the improvement in the investment which the man has made and the improvement in the realisation value of the property. I am sure the hon. Member will agree with me on that, as one who has given much attention to these financial and accountancy problems.
I do not believe our difficulties would have been obviated by a reduction of the charge from £91 to £75. I do not believe the difference between 9.1 and 7.5 would have been such as to remove the grievances of the demonstrators who came to Hyde Park and marched through London a few days ago. Why did that demonstration come? I think it came, fundamentally, because those people believe that if this Bill were defeated a better Bill would be introduced. I think that belief lies behind the arguments brought forward by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Petersfield (Major Dorman-Smith) that

opposition to this Bill had grown as time went on. Yes, but that is because people were told that if this Bill were defeated a better Bill would be introduced—but a better Bill in what way? We have already had arguments which have destroyed each other, the arguments of those who wish for more relief to the heavily-tithed lands and of those who wish for more relief for the lightly-tithed lands, the arguments of those who say that the Church and other tithe-owners are being prejudiced and of those who say that tithe-payers are being asked to bear an altogether unreasonable burden. The tithe-owners are not by any means all ecclesiastical tithe-owners. There is lay tithe, owned for the most part by great educational institutions, by Oxford and Cambridge colleges which now have a high proportion of working class members among their students. We should certainly have heard a great deal more of the injury inflicted upon educational establishments if we had made such a cut in tithe as would really satisfy the tithe-payers.
As my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir E. Ruggles-Brise) said, after a thoughtful and careful analysis of the Bill, and facing up frankly to many of the difficulties which he saw now and in the future, the House would be ill-advised to reject this Bill. I do not believe that if we shipwrecked this Bill we should find a better Bill this year, or within the lifetime of this Parliament or of any Parliaments to come. The chances of Parliamentary life are very great, and having got so far with the ship it would be a tragedy to see it capsized in sight of port. But it will not be. The House as a whole is, I am convinced, desirous of seeing a solution to this question, though it is a solution which may not be a final solution, because which of us can prophesy for 60 years?

Mr. ALEXANDER: Not this Government.

Mr. ELLIOT: I do not know of any Government which will last for 60 years. But this is a proposal which, at any rate, takes a long step forward on the right road towards the solution of the difficulty. The right road is, first of all, to sever the link, which has become a fetter, between the Church and tithe. Hon. Members in all parts of the House


have said, "Oh, if only the tithe could be 10 per cent. of the produce of the land instead of this fixed charge." The value of the agricultural produce of the titheable land of this country is £140,000,000 a year, and 10 per cent. of that would be £14,000,000 instead of the present tithe rentcharge value of between £2,000,000 and £4,000,000 a year. The breaking of that link is desirable and necessary. The second step is the unification of the charges upon the land. That the Inland Revenue will, in future, be the collector of the tithe is not an argument against but in favour of the Bill. A body which knows the difficulties of the agriculturist from the closest examination is a body which can be trusted not to harry him, not to press him unduly hard; otherwise, if they recover money with their right hand, they will lose it with their left hand; and it is the object and desire of the Inland Revenue authorities to keep the industries of the country, including the industry of agriculture, active and working. The unification of the charges on the land is a step forward and not a retrograde step in the solution of the problems of agriculture.
Finally, the scheme will bring the State into even closer connection with agriculture than it has been before. In the past the argument about tithe has been warped through and through with the religious quarrel, and any suggestion of a concession on tithe has been immediately mixed up inextricably with the question of whether it would or would not do good to the Established Church. From the moment this Bill passes through Parliament that quarrel ends. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Yes, that quarrel ends. Questions of whether the annuities should or should not be lower, or whether the method of collection is harsh, will be answered on the Floor of the House by a Minister; they will not be mixed up with a religious quarrel, but with the economic question of whether the burden is an undue one to place upon the shoulders of producers on the land. I think these are steps in advance which the House would be ill-advised to refuse. The hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon) said the Bill ought to be rejected because of the Financial Resolution and the necessarily strict terms in which it was drawn, but I think his argument was stultified by the very instances which he gave. He recalled that the

Noble Lord the Senior Member for Oxford University (Lord H. Cecil) had said that he could not support the Bill, but that he hoped it would be amended later so as not to remain the harsh and cruel Measure which it then was. Where is the Noble Lord to-night? He is not with us. Why? Because his argument has been met, because his case has been satisfied, because the protection of life interests, which was the main point he put before the House, has been effected. That was done by Amendments carried in Committee, the Committee which the hon. Member opposite said had been powerless to improve the Bill. I say that instance alone shows that the Committee was by no means the helpless body it was represented to be.

Mr. AMMON: The Noble Lord is not here to vote for the Bill.

Mr. ELLIOT: In this case he who is not against me is for me. In other respects the Committee was by no means the tongue-tied and helpless body which has been suggested. The right hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) said the Committee could not help the tithe-
payers. The hon. and learned Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens) will remember that in Committee we carried an Amendment providing that all the profits from the scheme should go, not into the maw of the Treasury, but into the scheme for the benefit of the tithe-payers. The shortening of the period, if the financial arrangements prove favourable, by, it may be, one, two, three or four years, was especially secured by an Amendment carried in Committee, that Committee which the right hon. Gentleman says was powerless to assist the tithe-payer. Other Amendments were made for the benefit of the tithe-payer, as all who were on the Committee will remember. The Financial Resolution was strict because the control of finance by this House, on the Floor of this House, is strict. Extra burdens placed on the general taxpayer would have led to the shipwreck of the Bill, because the interests of agriculture are interests which have to be protected by general measures, and I could not recommend those general measures to the House if, at the same time, I were recommending particular measures to benefit particular sections alone.
The benefits which the Bill has brought are denigrated by certain hon. Members


—they are lessened, I will not say sneered at, but condemned, by hon. and right hon. Members opposite—because we have merely come down to the figure of £91. The figure in the Bill of 1925 was introduced for the purpose of averting a mountainous rise in tithe. It was adopted to avoid a rise in tithe based on the figure of the seven year average, which hon. Members now say they would have been satisfied to see adhered to. The figure for the future of this industry cannot be calculated on forecasts of prices. An arbitrary figure must be taken, and if that arbitrary figure needs to be reconsidered it will be for future Parliaments to do so. I hope that necessity will not come to future Parliaments, though on that I will not attempt to prophesy. It has been said by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Petersfield: "If you throw out this Bill we shall come to you and give you advice; we shall tell you how you can arrive at a solution which will end your difficulties." The

Royal Commission was set up for that purpose, and went into this question far more thoroughly than this House can do, and the only variation we have made from the findings of the Royal Commission has been to avoid a rise in rates which might have amounted to 2s. 6d. in the pound in some rural parishes. The hon. and gallant Member for Maldon put his finger on the spot when he said, "You appointed a Royal Commission and allowed that Royal Commission a long period for the examination of the question. You then took the findings of the Commission and worked over them carefully for many weeks and, indeed, for months. The Royal Commission should be backed up, and the findings of the Committee of this House should be backed up." I ask you to do that to-night by giving a Third Reading to this Bill.

Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 251; Noes, 128.

Division No. 256.]
AYES.
[7.30 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff(W'st'r S.G'gs)
Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Guest,Maj. Hon. O.(C'mb'rw'll,N.W.)


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Courtauld, Major J. S.
Guinness, T. L. E. B.


Albery, Sir I. J.
Craddock, Sir R. H.
Gunston, Capt. D. W.


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C.of Ldn.)
Cranborne, Viscount
Hacking, Rt. Hon. D. H.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Hanbury, Sir C.


Apsley, Lord
Crooke, J. S.
Hannah, I. C.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.


Assheton, R.
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Harbord, A.


Astor, Major Hon. J. J. (Dover)
Crowder, J. F. E.
Hartington, Marquess of


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Culverwell, C. T.
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)


Atholl, Duchess of
Davies, C. (Montgomery)
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.


Balfour, G. (Hampstead)
Davison, Sir W. H.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
De la Bère, R.
Hepburn. P. G. T. Buchan-


Balniel, Lord
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)


Baxter, A. Beverley
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Drewe, C.
Herbert, Capt. Sir S. (Abbey)


Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Duckworth, G. A. V. (Salop)
Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.


Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury)
Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Holmes, J. S.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Dugdale, Major T. L.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.


Bernays, R. H.
Duggan, H. J.
Hopkinson, A.


Blair, Sir R.
Duncan, J. A. L.
Howitt, Dr. A. B.


Blindell, Sir J.
Dunne, P. R. R.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Eastwood, J. F.
Hudson, R. S. (Southport)


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Hurd, Sir P. A.


Brass, Sir W.
Ellis, Sir G.
Jackson, Sir H.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Elliston, G. S.
James, Wing-Commander A. W.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Emery, J. F.
Jarvis, Sir J. J.


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Joel, D. J. B.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)


Bull, B. B.
Erskine Hill, A. G.
Keeling, E. H.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)


Cartland, J. R. H.
Findlay, Sir E.
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)


Cary, R. A.
Fleming, E. L.
Kimball, L.


Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Kirkpatrick, W. M.


Cazalet, The[...];ma (Islington, E.)
Fraser, Capt. Sir I.
Latham, Sir P.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)


Channon, H.
Furness, S. N.
Leckle, J. A.


Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)
Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.
Leech, Dr. J. W.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.
Goodman, Col. A. W.
Lees-Jones, J.


Clarke, F. E.
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.
Levy, T.


Colfox, Major W. P.
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Lewis, O.


Colman, N. C. D.
Grigg, Sir E. W. M.
Liddall, W. S.


Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Grimston, R. V.
Lindsay, K. M.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Drake)
Liewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.




Lloyd, G. W.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Spens, W. P.


Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.
Pilkington, R.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Plugge, L. F.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)


MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Power, Sir J. C.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


McCorquodale, M. S.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.


MacDonald Rt. Hn. J. R. (Scot. U.)
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Ramsbotham, H.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Sutcliffe, H.


McKie, J. H.
Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Remer, J. R.
Tate, Mavis C.


Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Magnay, T.
Ropner, Colonel L.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (L'derry)
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Titchfield, Marquess of


Markham, S. F.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.
Train, Sir J.


Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.
Runciman. Rt. Hon. W.
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)
Tufnell, Lieut.-Com. R. L.


Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Salmon, Sir I.
Turton, R. H.


Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Samuel, Sir A. M. (Farnham)
Wakefield, W. W.


Moore, Lieut.-Col. T. C. R.
Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney)
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Moreing, A. C.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H.
Sandys, E. D.
Ward, Irene (Wallsend)


Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.
Warrender, Sir V.


Morrison, W. S. (Cirencester)
Scott, Lord William
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Selley, H. R.
Wells, S. R.


Munro, P.
Shakespeare, G. H.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Neven-Spence, Maj. B. H.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T.(Hitchin)


O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Palmer, G. E. H.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)
Wise, A. R.


Peat, C. U.
Smithers, Sir W.
Withers, Sir J. J.


Penny, Sir G.
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)



Percy, Rt. Hon. Lord E.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Perkins, W. R. D.
Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.
Major Sir George Davies and


Petherick, M.
Spender-Clay, Lt.-Cl. Rt. Hn. H. H.
Mr. Cross.




NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Parker, J.


Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Patrick, C.M.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Groves, T. E.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Potts, J.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'Isbr.)
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Pritt, D. N.


Ammon, C. G.
Hardle, G. D.
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Harris, Sir P. A.
Riley, B.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Ritson, J.


Barnes, A. J.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Batey, J.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Bellenger, F.
Holdsworth, H.
Rowson, G.


Benson, G.
Hollins, A.
Salter, Dr. A.


Bevan, A.
Jagger, J.
Seely, Sir H. M.


Broad, F. A.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Sexton, T. M.


Bromfield, W.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Shinwell, E.


Brooke, W.
John, W.
Short, A.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Silkin, L.


Burton, Col. H. W.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Chater, D.
Jones, J. J. (Silvertown)
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Cluse, W. S.
Kelly, W. T.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Compton, J.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Sorensen, R. W.


Cove, W. G.
Lathan, G.
Stephen, C.


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Lawson, J. J.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Dagger, G.
Lee, F.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
Leslie, J. R.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Loftus, P. C.
Thorne, W.


Day, H.
Logan, D. G.
Thurtle, E.


D[...] Chair, S. S.
Lunn, W.
Tinker, J. J.


Dobble, W.
McEntee, V. La T.
V[...]ant, S. P.


Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.
McGhee, H. G.
Walker, J.


Ede, J. C.
MacLaren, A.
Watkins, F. C.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Maclean, N.
Watson, W. McL.


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)
Wayland, Sir W. A.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
MacNeill, Weir, L.
Welsh, J. C.


Gardner, B. W.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Garro Jones, G. M.
Mark[...]ew, E.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Mathers, G.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Messer, F.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Granville, E. L.
Montague, F.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Ha'kn'y, S.)



Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Grenfell, D. R.
Oliver, G. H.
Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Charleton.


Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Paling, W.



Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — GREAT BRITAIN AND FRANCE.

MR. DUFF COOPRR'S SPEECH.

7.39 p.m.

Mr. ATTLEE: I beg to move, "That this House do now adjourn."
I do so in order to call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the action of the Secretary of State for War in making, in a foreign country, immediately prior to the assembly of the League, a public pronouncement which conflicts with the declared foreign policy of His Majesty's Government and the treaty obligations by which this country is bound. This afternoon, questions were addressed by the hon. Member for Shoreditch (Mr. Thurtle) and other hon. Members, to the Prime Minister—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"]—relative to those statements, which were made in Paris. I regret that the Prime Minister was unable to be here to reply to them. I regret that he is not able to be present at this Debate. The Prime Minister, above all, is responsible for maintaining that discipline in a Cabinet which is vitally necessary to the carrying on of efficient government, and is responsible for seeing that the policy which is laid down by the Government is laid down first and foremost in this House. I understand that the Prime Minister is resting. It cannot be that he thinks there is a lull. There is certainly no lull in foreign affairs, and there is no lull in Ministerial indiscretion; in fact there is rather a storm.
Let us be quite clear as to the circumstances in which Ministers speak. A Minister cannot separate, in a public pronouncement, his individuality and his Office. The Prime Minister said the other day that the observations made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer at a recent dinner were made entirely upon his own responsibility. That is entirely contrary to the constitutional position of Ministers in this country. Ministers cannot divest themselves of their position and make public statements about high matters of public policy, and then say, "We are not speaking for the Ministry; we have no collective responsibility. We are merely giving vent to our own passing fancies," especially when a Minister is speaking at the Head of a great Department. The right hon. Gentleman, who is Secretary of State for War, was speaking

in a foreign country, and he was speaking on foreign affairs. He was speaking at a time when the condition of foreign affairs was extremely delicate, and at a time, too, when there had been staff conversations arising out of foreign affairs between the staffs of this country and France. Therefore, it behoved him to be doubly careful in all that he said.
This was not just a meeting at which a Minister made a speech haphazard and without preparation. We heard from the Home Secretary to-day that this speech was considered. The right hon. Gentleman submitted a draft of the speech to the Foreign Office, and subsequently altered it in certain respects in response to their suggestions. Therefore, there is no question that it was realised that this speech was important. We are also told that in its final form the speech did not come under the personal notice of the Foreign Secretary; and so, one gathers that at some stage or other it was submitted to the Foreign Office, whether only to the officials or to the Foreign Secretary we do not know, that then there were alterations and that the Foreign Secretary did not see the final draft. The speech was being made at a dinner for the purpose of cementing Anglo-French sentiments, an object which we all agree to be most desirable. We have not an authoritative report, and therefore we have to depend upon the Press. I have compared reports in various newspapers in this country, and I have compared them with reports in the French newspapers. I find a pretty close agreement.
May I now refer to some of the phrases which the right hon. Gentleman used? Those extracts seem to me to indicate at least indiscretion. To make a plea for mutual understanding between this country and France, to press for the closest co-operation between the two great democracies of Western Europe, is one thing, and I believe it is a most desirable thing; but it is quite another to use phrases which seem to imply something much more than close co-operation and friendship, which have been interpreted in the Press as indicating a desire for a close military alliance—phrases indicating, first of all, that there is an absolute necessity that this country and France should always stand together in war, a "geographical inevitability." The right


hon. Gentleman stressed another phrase—it may have been only a rhetorical phrase—"the Covenant of the Entente Cordiale." But he did not stress another Covenant at all—the Covenant of the League of Nations. He said that friendship between these two countries was a matter of necessity; he said, "Your frontier is our frontier." In fact, what it came to was the absolute necessity for an Anglo-French alliance. I gather that the League of Nations was only mentioned in the course of a humourous anecdote, and, as I say, the Covenant was not mentioned at all.
It is not so much his positive remarks as his omissions and exclusions that are liable to cause embarrassment. To stress overmuch friendship with one country may lead, possibly, to other countries wondering why some stress was not laid on the need for friendship with all countries; and, further, his position seemed to be to deny that any question of public right came into foreign relations. He put it all on the ground of necessity. I was sorry to see that he referred to the War of 1914 as having been fought by this country only in its own interests. Well, they did not say that in 1914. When Sir Edward Grey stood up in this House and made his memorable speech, lie did not use the language of the right hon. Gentleman. He did not use the language of self-interest. He was urging that we should stand by our treaty obligations to Belgium, that we should stand for the public law as against the wanton attack. But the right hon. Gentleman has taken up the line that, apart from public law, there is an absolute binding necessity that we and France should stand together.
That is where, I think the seriousness of the position comes in. It is in effect a denial of our obligations under the Covenant, and certainly also of our obligations under the Locarno Agreement, because the Covenant of the League of Nations runs clean contrary to the idea that by self-interest one country should be bound to another and should engage in its quarrel right or wrong. Our obligation is to stand against an aggressor whoever that aggressor may be; and equally that obligation is binding on France; if this country were the aggressor, France would have to stand against it. The Locarno Treaty was not a Franco-British alliance against Germany,

or an Anglo-Belgian alliance against Germany, or an Anglo-German alliance against France; the whole idea of Locarno was one of mutual assistance. Locarno is killed if as a matter of fact there is some overwhelming necessity that binds two of the parties together. That is why we say that the right hon. Gentleman has gone against what is up to the present the declared policy of the Government.
I think, too, that in this matter we must consider whether it is really desirable that Ministers should constantly meddle in the affairs of the Foreign Office in this way. I wonder whether it is very helpful to the Foreign Secretary, whoever that Foreign Secretary may be. The Prime Minister told us that, when the present Foreign Secretary took over, he said to him:
So far, you have had roses, roses all the way, but before long you will get brick-bats."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, 23rd June, 1936; col. 1721, Vol. 313.]
He did not know that his own colleagues would be dropping the brickbats. I wonder what the Chancellor of the Exchequer would say if the Foreign Secretary made a few remarks about taxation and the like—if, some four or five weeks before the Budget, he made a great speech saying that there should be no more Income Tax, or that tea should not be taxed. I think he would tell him to mind his own business, and he would be quite right. I wonder what the Secretary of State for War would say if, just before he presented his Estimates, the Foreign Secretary made an airy speech somewhere in the country talking about the great traditions of the cavalry, or the need for getting rid of the cavalry, or the need for more tanks. He would tell him to "keep off the grass."
After all, the Home Secretary was perfectly right in the reply that he made to-day in the House. He said that the place for a declaration of Government policy is in the House of Commons. Our principle of Cabinet responsibility means that those policies that are laid down by the Government must be adhered to by the members of the Cabinet. We have got a long way away from the go-as-you-please methods which were suggested in 1931—that agreement to differ. I do not think it has ever been very effec-


tive. I am certain that this is not a time when one can have Ministers running round the country delivering themselves of different policies in this irresponsible way, and the spectacle it presents to the world is of a Cabinet in dissolution, of a Prime Minister who is a sort of Little Boy Blue away at Chequers fast asleep while the sheep are all over the place. We see the utter irresponsibility of this Government. We think it is time the Prime Minister should come down to the House and tell us plainly what the Government's policy is, and that, thereafter, Members of the Government who cannot control their tongues should hold them. We on these benches are not attacking in the least the spirit that no doubt emanated the right hon. Gentleman in his desire for the closest co-operation with the French people. On the contrary, we desire that close co-operation with the French people, and with all other people all over the world. But we are not prepared to say that, under whatever guise it may be, we are to be tied to an absolute military alliance. That, after all, is what happened in 1914—

Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Member must not go into the merits of any difference between the policies which it is suggested has been declared.

Mr. ATTLEE: I am contrasting this with the statements that we had from the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister in the Debate last week, in which they laid down their policy over and over again as a policy of desire to carry out the principle of the League of Nations and collective security. We say that any suggestion of an alliance of this kind—an alliance in which one country is bound to another, right or wrong, by some overwhelming necessity—is contrary to the spirit of the League of Nations, is contrary to the Covenant, is contrary to Locarno is contrary to the obligations which this country has undertaken, and is contrary to the professed policy of this Government.

7.57 p.m.

Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down that there were a, great many things in the speech of the Secretary of State for War in Paris which would command, if not unanimous, at

any rate a very large measure of, approval in this House, and with which I would certainly agree. There were, for example, some eloquent passages in which he stressed the importance of friendship between the French people and ourselves, and explained the dangers by which Western democracy is faced from certain tendencies in Germany; and those passages would, I think, be generally applauded in nearly every part of the House. It was when the right hon. Gentleman went on to say in so many words, "Your frontier is our frontier," that he passed from a discussion of those general principles of policy, he passed from agreement with what the Prime Minister had declared was the policy of the Government in the last Debate that we had on foreign affairs and he plunged clearly for a policy of military alliance, which we on these benches, at any rate, repudiate, and which is inconsistent with the policy which the Prime Minister laid down. In the Prime Minister's speech last week in which he expounded the policy of the Government, there was a very eloquent passage in which he referred to Waterloo—to the British waiting there for the arrival of the Prussian Army to defeat the French. Then he referred to the Great War, where the French and the British fought side by side against the Germans. He went on to say:
I felt this: Has not the time come when it is possible for these three great countries to get together?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd June, 1938; col. 1730, Vol. 313.]
Then, a few days later, the Secretary of State for War goes to Paris and asks the French people in their own capital whether the time has not come for these two great nations to get together against a third. That is the gravamen of the charge which I feel bound to bring against the right hon. Gentleman's speech. He said:
Everything in which we believe is being turned to ridicule. The only titling that matters is the race. Indeed, at this moment in Europe people are teaching that liberty is a false ideal, and that obedience to a man's will is the highest form of human activity.
That is quite true. All these are things that I agree with, but it was in dealing with them that the right hon. Gentleman went on to say:
and your frontier is our frontier.


It is from the other side of that frontier that these dangers are threatened. It is there that I prefer the approach of the Prime Minister when he said the object of the Government's policy was not to emphasise the frontier dividing the French and British from the Germans, and the Italians if you like to include them, but that the object of our policy should be to bring these great nations together and to pursue a policy of peace in co-operation with all these great nations. I believe that it is for that policy, which is the policy of the League of Nations, as opposed to the policy of military alliances, that you can win an almost united public opinion in this country. But the right hon. Gentleman passed from that policy and talked of the common frontier—talked of the covenant that was sealed in blood. What covenant was that? That is what the right hon. Gentleman spoke of. He spoke of the covenant and the entente cordiale, which though only a verbal covenant was sealed with the blood of the youth of Britain and France. Was not that a reference to two nations united against a third? My statement was amply justified from the right hon. Gentleman's own speech.
It is not only these passages in the right hon. Gentleman's speech to which I have referred that are alarming, but it is also alarming that in these days of very great difficulty in Europe the leaders of this nation should be speaking with so many voices. The Secretary of State for War in another speech a fortnight ago said:
I think it is the duty of all those persons in authority to frighten the people of this country out of their wits.
If that is their duty, I should never have accused this Government of neglecting it. But I think this is the thing that is frightening the people at the present moment, when they see a series of speeches, made sometimes it may be by the Secretary of State for War, sometimes by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I remember a speech last year by the Secretary of State for Air denouncing collective security.

Mr. SPEAKER: I must ask the right hon. Gentleman to remember that the Debate must be confined to the difference between the right hon. Gentleman's

speech and the declared policy of the Government.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: The Leader of the Opposition referred to the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and was not called to order, and that is why I transgressed. I will certainly keep closely to the speech of the Secretary of State. It is one of several examples lately of a speech the purport of which is at variance with speeches delivered by other important Ministers, and in this particular case with a speech delivered by the Prime Minister in this House only last week. I believe it is of very great importance that, in this very difficult situation with which the country is faced, the Government should decide its policy and state it clearly—state a consistent theme clearly to the House and to the country, and convince the country that it has a purpose to which it will hold with tenacity. A speech like that of the Secretary of State for War, at variance with that of the Prime Minister only last week, marks the Government's infirmity of purpose, injures the prestige of this country and endangers the prospects of peace.

8.5 p.m.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I usually find myself, on these discussion upon questions connected with foreign affairs, in very general agreement with the right hon. Gentleman, at any rate on many points, and very often with the views that are expressed from the official Opposition benches, and I should be sorry if anything occurred as the result of this Debate to weaken what, I think, is the growing consensus of opinion throughout the House as to the general direction in which we should advance. I was, therefore, sorry that the right hon. Gentleman should, as it were, seem to pick a quarrel with the Secretary of State upon the actual wording of his speech. I took the trouble to procure a copy of the final draft in its French form, and I have read it from beginning to end. In regard to all speeches that one is going to criticise very severely, it is a good thing to read the whole of the speech, and then one sees what the setting of any particular argument is. I think I can say that, if my right hon. Friend had read the whole of the speech in its setting, he would not have found


occasion to make all the criticism that he has made. In its sentiments nothing could be more admirable, and I should have thought nothing could be more admirable to the right hon. Gentleman who, although at the head of an exiguous band of followers, nevertheless raises the Gladstonian standard and defends it with the most vigorous eloquence.
What, then, are the sentiments in this speech, and how do they differ from the declared policy of His Majesty's Government, and indeed from the general view of the House of Commons? There is a strong defence of the rights of the individual, and the conception that it is the State that exists to serve the individual rather than the individual who is to be a mere pawn in the hands of the State. There is nothing wrong about that. Then there was, I think, a strong deprecation of the glorification of war and the training of children from their youth up to have these ideas of war inculcated. Such ideas were denounced and detested, and I have not the slightest doubt that the right hon. Gentleman could from his vocabulary find even stronger terms to denounce them. Then that is all right. Then there were a number of passages about the natural sympathy that exists between Parliamentary and democratic nations who have what are called liberal institutions, I suppose with a small "1," and which, naturally, tend to have many ties of association, moral and sentimental, between them. There, again, I should have thought, if the right hon. Gentleman had been one of the guests at the dinner, his heart would have swelled with satisfaction, and even enthusiasm, to find these views, of which he and his friends are earnest exponents, put forward by the Secretary of State. Well, that is all right, too. I should like to say to the right hon. Gentleman that he is having a lot with which he is satisfied and, having regard to the fact that so many of these sentiments were all that his own heart would wish and all that his own tongue could express, he might have been a little less captious in the scrutiny and examination that he made of some phrases that occurred in the speech.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: At the beginning of my speech I expressed my agreement with all those sentiments to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Much depends on the emphasis put upon it. If the right hon. Gentleman was going to make an attack upon the Secretary of State, he foresaw quite clearly that in the main that speech had expressed his own views and convictions. He foresaw very clearly the argument that would be used against it, and endeavoured to discount it by making a very brief reference to the fact that there were things in it with which he agreed, and then proceeded to pass a most severe censure upon it, and tried to create the idea of a difference in foreign policy where I cannot for the life of me see that any difference between the Secretary of State and the Government and the Prime Minister exists. I do not under-rate the importance of the speech. Of course, it is important. Ministers in high positions cannot speak on public matters without importance being attached to what they say, and the theory that they should all remain absolutely dumb on all occasions, awaiting illumination and guidance from the head of the Government to be given ex cathedra, is one which would mean a restriction upon our public life which it has never borne before.
I certainly think the speech of the Secretary of State was a statement of policy, but is it a statement of new policy? Does it not lie within the broad ambit of the policy which the Government have declared? The procedure that my right hon. Friend adopted seems to me to have been most scrupulously correct. He actually sent his speech beforehand to the Foreign Secretary, very rightly, and the Foreign Secretary examined it. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Certainly, in the first instance. All we have been told is that it did not come in its final form. The two Secretaries of State, very important Ministers, who enjoy a high measure of respect, consulted together over the speech, and modifications were made in it by the Secretary of State for War at the request of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Certainly.

Mr. THURTLE: From the reply given to-day by the Home Secretary there is no indication whatever that the Foreign Secretary ever saw that speech at all.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I certainly understood that he did. [HON. MEMBERS "No!"] Then I state, according to my


information, which no doubt can be verified or disproved by the Government, that that is what took place, and it seems to me that there is very little in it to say that, though the speech was consulted upon by the two Ministers concerned, the final draft did not come under the eye of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. Is it suggested that, after these Ministers had reached an agreement upon what should be said, the Secretary for War went away and made a final draft which did not correspond to the agreement which they had made? It cannot be that there was such a suggestion in any way. Therefore, it seems to me that in making a speech of this kind, the Secretary of State for War acted fully in accordance with what were the necessary proprieties of one colleague to another in the course of public business.
The question to which you, Sir, most rightly and strictly, limit our Debate, is whether there is a contrast between the speech of the Secretary of State and the policy of the Government. It seems to me that the speech of the Secretary of State lies well within the policy of the Government. The right hon. Gentleman, I think it was—or was it the Leader of the Opposition?—referred to the staff conversations that had been taking place. Well, can you compare a speech of this kind in general terms, of a courteous and ceremonious character, on a festive occasion of good will, on the celebration of fraternal good will between Great Britain and France—can you compare a speech of that kind with the grave, sombre meeting together of technical experts from the different countries, from the two countries concerned, with Belgium added, not all the countries, but the two particular countries who have a common frontier, preparing to defend the common frontier, who were not merely making speeches about it, but military experts making plans and preparing to defend that common frontier in case that common frontier should be the object of unprovoked aggression? With that fact staring us in the face, surely, is it not boggling at very much smaller matters to make all this tremendous attack upon a speech which the Secretary of State made, and which fell far short of the facts as they have been approved by this House?
There is another question which may arise. It may be said that although the

speech of the Secretary of State did not go beyond the actual facts and policy of the Government, it indirectly went beyond them by its untimeliness. There, again, I cannot feel that there is any ground for saying that. There have been great labour troubles in France, and we, too, have had in our past labour troubles, but very often foreign countries exaggerate the effect of troubles which are going on in another country and form wrong conclusions thereby. They do not realise that a country may be having a lot of internal disputes and even strikes and so forth, and yet, if danger confronts the whole country, it would be united as one. It was timely to speak a word of comfort to the French people. The Leader of the Opposition paid a visit to France himself a little while ago. I am not going to dwell upon that, except as an illustration in procedure. It seems to me that for the Leader of the Opposition to open up, as it were, separate diplomacy with the head of another Government—

Mr. ATTLEE: This is a serious matter. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that when I saw M. Blum he was not the head of the Government.

Mr. CHURCHILL: The strict formalism of the right hon. Gentleman undoubtedly protects him in that respect, but his action in going to the Prime Minister designate, or who was about to become Prime Minister, was at least as open to criticism as the friendly mission which the Secretary for War undertook. Anyhow, I do not cavil at the right hon. Gentleman's act; indeed, I think it was rather a sensible thing in a way for the democratic representatives of the two countries to be in friendly touch. I think that it is a good thing that the ties of friendship which subsist between us and our nearest neighbours, the French people, should be multiplied by friendly contacts of this kind. We would make a great mistake if we tried to pretend that any new declaration of policy has been made. What has happened has been that there has been a friendly contact, and a very excellent speech, admirable in sentiment, has been delivered of a kind to make good will between France and Great Britain without casting any aspersions upon any other country, unless that country harbours aggressive intentions. I hope that His Majesty's Government are going to pluck up their courage and are


not going to apologise, and whittle away the speech of the Secretary of State for War. I trust that they will not. The Foreign Secretary who undoubtedly accepts, and must accept, an effective measure of responsibility for that speech, has acted wisely at this juncture in encouraging or allowing his colleague to make a gesture of this kind in Paris. I trust that nothing will be done to weaken the force and effect of that admirable gesture, and that, on the contrary, that speech may play its part in the unfolding of a general design and purpose in our foreign policy which, as is asserted on all sides, is needed if we are to make effective headway against the growing dangers which encircle us.

8.23 p.m.

Mr. A. HENDERSON: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), with his usual astuteness, has sought to draw a red herring across the trail. No one on this side of the House objects to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War paying a friendly visit to the capital of our neighbouring country, France, but the very fact that in the German Press there has been considerable criticism of the speech which the right hon. Gentleman delivered last week, is a sufficient indication that in the mind of many people a different interpretation can be placed upon that speech from that which was placed upon it by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill). When he suggests that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War has as much right to visit Paris as the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, he is merely trying to draw a red herring across the trail. The question that we have to decide to-night is whether the speech of the Secretary of State for War in any way conflicts with the declared policy of His Majesty's Government, and it is no justification for anyone to argue, as the right hon. Gentleman has just argued, that nine-tenths of the speech is innocuous. The Home Secretary has had a much greater experience in the Courts than I have, but he as well as myself has had actual experience of persons being convicted and sent to prison in respect of one particular sentence out of a document which was otherwise entirely innocuous. Therefore,

if only one sentence in the speech of the Secretary of State for War was a declaration of policy different from that which has hitherto been the policy of His Majesty's Government, that in itself would justify the action which hon. Members on this side of the House have taken to-night.
The Secretary for War used two phrases which justify the suggestion put forward by the Leader of the Liberal party that, in effect, he was arguing in favour of a return to a military alliance between this country and France. There is no Member on this side of the House but desires the greatest friendship with the French people. There is, I trust, no Member on this side who desires the French nation to undergo again the experience they went through in 1914 or even 1871. That is an entirely different proposition. What is apparently the difference between hon. Members on this side of the House and hon. Members on the other side is as to the system which shall seek to regulate the relations between and afford protection to the various nations of the world. So far as the Government are concerned they have, since last year at any rate, stood behind the collective peace system. Unfortunately, the events of the last few months have caused many people not only in this House but outside to doubt whether or not the Government are prepared to stand four-square on the collective peace system. When the Hoare-Laval episode took place we had an illustration of their point of view, that they linked individual responsibility with collective security for themselves, but that is a very different matter from supporting a policy of collective security for all the nations of the world. Therefore, we are entitled to be suspicious of the intentions of the Government when we read a speech such as that which was made last week by the War Secretary.
I should like to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that any Cabinet Minister who makes a speech on policy, whether it deals with home affairs or foreign affairs, is expected to be speaking to the policy for which his Government stand, and, therefore, if it is a reasonable interpretation of his speech that he was seeking to declare to the French nation that we stood in unity with them, that their frontier was our frontier,


it could only mean to the average French citizen that in all circumstances any violation of the French frontier will be regarded as a violation of our frontier, and just as any violation of our frontier would mean that we should resist it by every means at our disposal, so we should resist any invasion or violation of the French frontier by every means at our disposal. That may be so, provided we are acting within the terms of the Covenant of the League of Nations. It is no use, as the Leader of the Opposition pointed out, to enter into treaties such as the Treaty of Locarno, whereby we in effect seek to act as the guarantor of the security not only of France but of Germany and Belgium, if a few years later we are going to declare through the words of a prominent Member of His Majesty's Government that the French frontier is our frontier. If we are to be consistent we should say that the German frontier and the Belgian frontier also constitute our frontiers. Many of us believe that the only frontier worth considering is the Covenant itself, the world frontier. Many hon. Members opposite are sceptical on that subject. They are always prepared to pay lip service to the League of Nations, but when it comes to the testing time they find every conceivable kind of difficulty in order that they may argue that it is an impossible and impractical proposition.
I should like to remind the Secretary of State for War that he could not do better on a future occasion than take the advice of his own leader, the Prime Minister. In 1924 accusations of grave indiscretion were made against the Labour Home Secretary of that time. He had made a speech at a by-election advocating a policy for which the Labour party has always stood, namely, the peaceful revision of the Treaty of Versailles. Whether he was right or wrong is another matter; the fact is that he made the speech. He spoke on a Saturday night and the speech was reported in the Sunday newspapers and also in the newspapers on the Monday. The polling day was on the Thursday. I am sure that the action of the Opposition had nothing to do with the fact that the polling day was on the Thursday, but they raised the matter on the eve of the poll, on the Wednesday night, and in that Debate the present Prime Minister made this statement:

If this Debate has done nothing else it will have brought home to Ministers, present, past and prospective, that no deviation can be made from that strict line of conduct which is demanded by the responsibility that one Cabinet Minister owes to another and to the Cabinet and to its chief. If it brings that home to them, this Debate will not have been held in vain. The House is very jealous of its honour, and of that aspect of its honour which affects those who sit on the Front Ministerial Bench. Into the reasons for the growth of that sense of responsibility, this is hardly the time to go, but it must be perfectly obvious to every Member of the House that if Members of the Cabinet are allowed to speak at large their own private views on home affairs, and much more on foreign affairs, they may create a false impression before the electorate at home, and again, what is far worse, a false impression of the intentions of the Government in foreign affairs, which to-day are of such a critical nature."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th February, 1924; col. 629, Vol. 170.]
If conditions were of a critical nature in 1924 I suggest that they are of a much more critical nature at the present time. If it was important not to create a false impression in the minds of people abroad in 1924, how much more important is it to avoid that false impression in 1936? It is no use the right hon. Gentleman saying: "I did not mean what the Opposition say I meant." Rightly or wrongly, newspapers throughout Europe are placing upon the speech an interpretation which may be completely at variance with the interpretation which the Home Secretary may give us in a few minutes. The fact that that false impression, if it be a false impression, has been placed upon the speech, does not lessen the grave indiscretion of the right hon. Gentleman in placing himself in that position. Therefore, I hope that the Home Secretary will make it perfectly clear to the House, to the nation and to the world at large, that the War Secretary has been misunderstood, that the policy he sought to adumbrate was in no sense a return to any kind of military alliance or military understanding with the French Government, that in spite of his eloquent words all that he meant to convey was that the British Government were determined to face up to their obligations under the Covenant of the League of Nations and their obligations under the Treaty of Locarno.
Even if that be the case, we are still entitled to say that it is very unfortunate


that he ever made the speech, but it would do a great deal to assure public opinion in this and other countries, especially in Germany, that there is no desire on the part of the British Government to enter into any kind of arrangement with France or with any other country which would close the door to a peacefully inclined Germany. Let us give them every opportunity. I know that there are many people who are sceptical of the intentions of Germany. There are many people in Germany who are sceptical of the intentions of people in this and other countries, and it is this distrust, which has developed in the last few years, which will lead the world into war once more. I hope the Government will make it perfectly clear to the world that the foreign policy of the Government, in spite of what has taken place in relation to Abyssinia, is to stand four square on the Covenant of the League of Nations.

8.37 p.m.

Mr. HAROLD NICOLSON: I shall intrude for only a few moments on the patience of the House, and I do so, not merely as representing the National Labour group, but as one who through a long and perhaps misspent life has devoted much study to the theory as well as to the practice of diplomacy. From that study I have derived many doubts, a few principles and one conviction. My conviction is that the personal mission of a Minister abroad is the most dangerous form of diplomacy which can possibly exist. I know that I stand on the razor-edge of order and that if I continue to discuss that matter I shall be slipping into disorder, but I merely say that the personal mission of a Minister abroad to negotiate diplomatic contracts places that Minister in the position of being not the master of his opportunity but the slave of an occasion. If it were true that the Secretary of State for War had gone to Paris in order to act as in itinerant Minister I should be the first to vote for the Motion of hon. Members opposite. But did he do so? He did not. Did the right hon. Gentleman negotiate anything? Did he conclude anything, or enter into a single commitment or pledge on behalf of the Government or this House? Was there a single opinion to which he committed His Majesty's Government or

this House? Nothing of the sort. He could not go as a private individual.
I agree with hon. Members opposite that a Cabinet Minister can never be a private individual. He went there as an important British figure, to give sympathy and encouragement to the French nation at a moment of great internal difficulty. He spoke quite rightly of the great debt which he owes to French culture. He has repaid that debt by writing the best biography of a French statesman that has ever been written. He spoke in terms of the solidarity, geographical and democratic, of the two countries, and if he touched on politics, if he did anything to give a political and diplomatic colour to his statements, he did so in terms which, as the right hon. Gentleman for Epping (Mr. Churchill) has said, were less expressive and less precise than those which have been stated in this House and approved by this House and backed by the Government. There was no point at which I could discover—I have read the whole text of the speech with a rather professional and jealous eye—the slightest conflict with Government policy.
I pass from what the right hon. Gentleman said, because I gather it is not really the cause of the indignation of hon. Members opposite, so much as why he said it, the principle rather than the actual facts. Surely hon. Members opposite realise that it is absolutely essential, if we are going to educate our democracy into a conception of their responsibilities in foreign politics, that they should be told certain things, and if this veto is to be passed on all mention of foreign politics at home and abroad then the veto should stand for the statements of hon. Members opposite as well. I have read a great many speeches and leading articles in foreign newspapers in which the statements of hon. Members opposite, His Majesty's Opposition, have been twisted, I admit, and garbled, I admit, to represent the policy of His Majesty's Opposition as something which would in fact fill them with horror and dismay.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain Bourne): Hon. Members are aware that the Debate is limited to the terms of the Motion, which deals solely with the speech made by the Secretary of State for War:


in a foreign country immediately prior to the meeting of the Assembly of the League, a public pronouncement which conflicts with the declared foreign policy of His majesty's Government and the treaty obligations by which this country is bound.
I do not think we can go beyond that on this occasion.

Mr. NICOLSON: I apologise for having gone beyond the Motion. The Secretary of State for War made a speech which in certain points has aroused the indignation of hon. Members opposite, who claim that it is in conflict with the declared policy of His Majesty's Government. I think I have said enough to deny that implication. Hon. Members opposite cannot point to one statement made by the Secretary of State for War which is not completely composed within statements which have been made from the Government bench with the approval of this House.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Is that the Government's view? I think it is very important that we should know before the Debate is over whether the Secretary of State for War in his speech declared the policy of the Government. Two statements have been made to which the Home Secretary should reply. The first was made by the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), that the Foreign Secretary approved of the speech beforehand, that it was submitted to him. I hope the Home Secretary will answer that point. The second statement is by the hon. Member who is now addressing the House, that the speech of the Secretary of State for War represents the policy of His Majesty's Government. It is important that we should have a reply.

Mr. NICOLSON: I am unable to anticipate the Home Secretary's answer, but I should like to say to the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) that I never said that the speech of the Secretary of State for War represents the policy of the Government. I merely said that the right hon. Gentleman's speech did not conflict with the policy of the Government and did not imply anything which has not been stated on previous occasions from the Government bench. I am not stating a positive; I am denying a negative, and in that I am absolutely justified.
I go further. If this Motion be persisted in, what does it imply? How will

it be taken abroad? What is the policy of the Government? The policy of the Government is, I admit, fully majestic arid obscure, but there are tendencies discernible in that obscurity. One of those tendencies is our friendship with members of the League of Nations as against those who are not members; and Germany is not a member. Therefore, it was right that in going to France, the right hon. Gentleman should reflect that tendency by referring in terms of warm friendship to France and without mentioning Germany particularly, because at this moment Germany is most unfortunately not a member of the League. He was dealing in terms of Western Europe, and if one is doing that one must deal in terms of League members. I see nothing wrong in that or anything conflicting with the policy of the Government or with the great general issues with which we are dealing in this country regarding France or Germany. I would go further and ask the right hon. Gentleman what will be the effect if he persists in this Motion and convinces the world that this country and this House consider that a definite expression of friendship and solidarity on a democratic basis with France is a constitutional heresy.

Mr. ATTLEE: We have all agreed on this side of the House—and I thought the whole House agreed—that we are thoroughly sympathetic to the speech as far as it expressed solidarity and friendship with France, but there are specific points on which we have challenged the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. NICOLSON: I am not questioning the right hon. Gentleman's intentions, which I know to be as sincere and as considered as our own. It is a question of responsibility that I am raising. Is it right that the Leader of His Majesty's Opposition in such a case should get up and question a speech regarding which, although he agrees with all that is amenable to himself, he disagrees with the points which he finds inconvenient? He knows perfectly well that in raising this question of conflict between what my right hon. Friend said and the Government policy, he is pressing a point which will be taken up in the German and French Press. He knows that he will be pressing the point that this country is not able or willing to take a firm, definite and certain attitude by the side of other democratic


countries. He knows that such will be the interpretation of his Motion, and that at this moment, in his responsible position, he is giving a great discouragement to a foreign Government to which he and all of us on both sides of the House wish, in a very difficult stage in their authority, to give all possible sympathy and support. Therefore, I am sure that if he realises his own responsibility at such a moment, he will not press this Motion against my right hon. Friend, who really said nothing which was not compatible with the Government's policy.

8.50 p.m.

Mr. THURTLE: The hon. Member who has just spoken has knowledge of diplomacy, and I understood him to say that the Secretary of State for War, in being sent to Paris to give new emphasis to British foreign policy, was being sent on a perilous mission. If we can show that the Secretary of State for War did go to Paris with the approval of the Foreign Office and did in the course of his speech give a new orientation to British foreign policy, I think we can establish the point that the Foreign Office has made a mistake.

Mr. NICOLSON: I never said or suggested that the right hon. Gentleman had been sent on a mission to negotiate anything. My whole point was that he was not negotiating and not expressing a policy.

Mr. THURTLE: If he went to Paris with the blessing and approval of the Foreign Office to give our foreign policy a new orientation, then the Foreign Office made a mistake in so giving its blessing and approval.

Mr. NICOLSON: The Foreign Office did not in any sense approve or bless the policy. They merely vetted his speech.

Mr. THURTLE: The hon. Member said—and this was the main burden of his speech—that the Secretary of State for War, in his speech, never said anything which was outside accepted and understood British foreign policy. I am going to suggest to the hon. Member that there are two points which emerge from the speech of the Secretary of State for War which show clearly that he did deviate from accepted British foreign policy. The first point is the emphasis which he

laid upon the imminent peril existing in Europe. Now, one does not talk in the air about an imminent peril; it must have been that the Secretary of State was referring—he could not have been referring to anything else—to the menace of Germany.

Miss RATHBONE: Of course. Why not?

Mr. THURTLE: In emphasising the menace of Germany at a time when we are conducting negotiations with Germany in a most delicate situation and at a time when the Government are still pledged to the policy of collective security, surely the Secretary of State for War was giving a new twist and a new turn to British foreign policy. The other point which emerges most clearly from his speech is the fact that he was arguing for and urging a military alliance with France. I think that can easily be proved by the language which the right hon. Gentleman used. But, first of all, I wish to deal with the question as to whether the Foreign Minister himself approves of the sentiments which were expressed by the Secretary of State for War. I hope hon. Members will observe the terms of the answer which was given to the question this afternoon. The answer stated:
I should add that he submitted a draft of his speech to the Foreign Office"—
not to the Foreign Secretary—
and subsequently altered it in certain respects in response to their suggestions. I understand that in its final form the speech did not come under the personal notice of the Foreign Secretary.
There is not a word in that answer to suggest that the Foreign Secretary ever saw the speech, but it is clear from the answer that it was seen by the Foreign Office, and was, in effect, approved by them. Who was it who examined this speech at the Foreign Office? It was a very grave matter of the highest possible importance. The speech must have been examined by a person of authority and responsibility. I suggest that we ought really not to be denouncing the Secretary of State for War to-night in the way that we are denouncing him. He was going to Paris and was going to make an important reference to foreign affairs. What did he do? He thought, "This is a matter on which the Department concerned ought to be consulted so that the


people who understand it can see whether what I am going to say is expedient or not." He submitted his speech to the Foreign Office and they told him, in effect, that he might proceed and make the references he intended to make. In those circumstances we ought not really to indict the Secretary of State for War. The people with whom we are concerned are those at the Foreign Office who authorised the right hon. Gentleman to make these statements. I suggest that it was not the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, but the permanent officials of the Foreign Office, who have a definite co-French bias.
We are told that the references in this speech were not designed to conflict with the policy of the Government. I ask the House to note two phrases. I have already mentioned two points in which the speech does conflict with the policy of the Government. The right hon. Gentleman said that it was an urgent necessity, a question of life and death, to the two nations to get together. To what was he referring? Of course he was referring to the menace of Germany.
[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] In that case, in the light of the language employed by the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister only recently, that clearly meant a new orientation of British foreign policy. Then there was the reference to an alliance with France. If language has any meaning the references of the right hon. Gentleman to "closer and closer co-operation" between the two countries meant that we ought to have a definite military alliance with France. What is the extraordinary position, then, at which we arrive? I say, and I invite the Home Secretary to contradict it if he can, that the Foreign Secretary himself knew nothing at all about this—that this was done without his knowledge, consent or approval.
Here then we have this position. The Foreign Office approve of statements made by the Secretary of State for War, grave statements which, according to all the known facts are not in accordance with Government policy, but rather in flat contradiction of Government policy. I hesitate in making the suggestion, but the facts point that way—because remem-affair. Does all this mean—remembering also the recent speech of the Chancellor—that the Foreign Office is pre-

pared to approve of statements of policy on foreign affairs by Cabinet Ministers which the Foreign Secretary himself would be reluctant to make? Are we, in fact, confronted with the possibility of what amounts to a departmental intrigue against the Foreign Secretary?
We were interested to observe the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) in a new role as defender of the Government. It is sometimes said in military affairs, I believe, that if a frontal attack fails you must adopt other methods. The right hon. Gentleman has made a good many direct assaults against the Government lately. They have not been very successful and now he appears to be seeking to turn their flank by blandishments. I hope he may be successful in this, but that is not th epoint with which I wish to deal at the moment. We are entitled to ask that the Ministers should speak with one voice in these matters of foreign policy. There ought to be uniformity. The right hon. Gentleman in defending the Secretary of State for War said that the speech was made on a festive occasion. We cannot accept an excuse of that sort for landing us in a military alliance which might have calamitious consequences for the people of this country. No excuse that a harmful speech has been made on a festive occasion can be accepted as satisfactory. We have a right to ask for a consistent and coherent foreign policy. We are entitled to ask that the public mind of this country and of the world should not be confused by the speeches of individual Ministers. We are entitled to ask for something which we are not getting now—for consistency and leadership in foreign affairs.

9.1 p.m.

Captain Sir SIDNEY HERBERT: In my membership of the House I do not recollect a Motion of this kind having been moved upon so frivolous an occasion as that to-night. Not a single quotation has been made from the speech of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War which has, for one second, borne out the contention that he advocated any policy contrary to that of His Majesty's Government. No Member who has risen to speak so far, either on the Liberal or the Labour benches, has quoted such a sentence. Of what does the speech consist? In what may be described as the


wildest moment of that speech, my right hon. Friend repeated the statement of the Prime Minister, to the effect that the frontier of this country was on the Rhine. For the sake of greater accuracy, I have a copy of the speech here. I have read it in English and I have read it in French in various newspapers. I find that at the beginning it consists of the statement that my right hon. Friend's general culture had been improved by a knowledge of French literature and life, and that I know to be true, because I have known my right hon. Friend from boyhood to manhood. He went on to say that from time to time the English and the French liked each other and from time to time they disliked each other, but that particular likes and dislikes had very little to do with the case when they were like two sailors on a raft. They might dislike each other but they were bound to collaborate. Does any hon. Member opposite object to those statements?
I believe there is not a single statement in the speech which is contrary to the views expressed by His Majesty's Government, and what I ask the Opposition is: What statement is there in this speech which is contrary to their own views? My right hon. Friend went on to say—I am now translating from the French—that our affection for France was based on our belief in the value of the individual, our belief in liberty of speech and thought. Is there any objection to that? Secondly, he said, that that feeling was accompanied by a general hatred of violence and force. Thirdly, he said, and I hope the Opposition will not object to this sentiment, that in the regulation of international disputes we ought to have recourse to methods of reasonable and pacific legality. Liberty, he said, was our aim and he added, "La paix, c'est notre mot d'ordre." Is there any objection to that? He also said that there were certain quarters in Europe in which it was preached to all the winds that war was desirable, that youth should be impregnated by the desire to fight those like himself and that it was natural to man to seek the highest honour by death on the field of battle. Do they object to that? Is that not preached in at least three countries in Europe to-day, and why is it unfair that a Minister of this country should get up and say it?
The rest of the speech, except for a slight regret that we burned Joan of Arc and a note of pleasure that we imprisoned Napoleon, seems to me to have been one that might have been made at any debating society, or certainly by anyone who went to a foreign country or any society which exists to try and unite two countries in amity and friendship. Indeed, I wish that all Ministers or all Members of this House spoke in such terms. My right hon. Friend seemed to me to give us what I always wish for, namely, a truism which the people think expressed in exquisite language. There was not a word in that speech which contravenes the principles of the Treaty of Locarno. Is any hon. Member opposite going to deny the Treaty of Locarno? The principles of that speech seem to me to make a good deal clearer, but to go no farther than, the rest of the policy of His Majesty's Government. I belong to a generation which saw hundreds of thousands of men from this country shot down because the then existing Liberal Government refused to tell the truth either to Germany or to Europe. There are a great many dangers in foreign policy to-day, but the greatest of all is the fear of people in this country expressing what their real policy is. The Treaty of Locarno is embedded in the Covenant of the League of Nations. We have not gone any farther than that.
The right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) said the other day that the people of this country would not fight for Austria. Why did he choose Austria, the country which his Treaties more than any others have mutilated? The greatness of this country or of any other country does not depend upon stating what you will not fight for, but rather on what you will be prepared, on behalf of the lives and liberties of your people, to fight for. On the actual facts of the Motion, I approve what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War said, and from a general point of view, for the good of the people of this country, I think he rendered to this country one of the greatest services which have been renered by a Minister for many years past.

9.8 p.m.

Mr. SORENSEN: Every speech from the benches opposite so far has


confirmed the conviction of many of us on these benches that in fact, whatever may be the nominal policy of the Government, that nominal policy is at variance with their real policy. The speech of the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) was designed to prove what in fact he has stood for so long, and I am sure I am doing him no injustice when I say that what many others stand for is a policy of military alliances, and an open or secret recognition that the old policy of international co-operation and the League of Nations has utterly failed. When we are asked, as we were just now, whether there is anything in the speech, as reported, made by the Secretary of State for War to which we take objection, might I quote but one sentence, which, for its applied significance more than anything else, illuminates the real policy of the Government? According to the report in the "Evening Standard," the right hon. Gentleman declared in the earlier part of his speech that we entered the last War because our vital interests were at stake. There was not one word in that statement or in any other part of his address recognising the fact that thousands entered the last War and died because of Belgium and the sanctity of treaties.
We have now the statement that, according to the mind of the Secretary of State for War, we entered the last War purely for national interests. I suggest that the reasons why the right hon. Gentleman made that statement regarding the real motives of the last war was that the same motives actuate the Government of the day in their preparation for another war. The policy of sectional alliances is obviously the policy to which they are drifting, if they have not already reached it. I suggest that we are entitled, because of the implications of that policy, to move this Motion to-day, and to do so with the knowledge that the country as a whole is also more than alarmed at the apparent policy of the Government as expressed through the mouthpiece of the Secretary of State for War.
May I draw attention to yet another sentence in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, in which he said that:
it is on the two great democracies of the Western world that the terrible responsibility now rests of saving not only ourselves,

but the civilisation that we have created at the price of so much effort.
It is news to me that it is France and Britain alone that created Western civilisation, and I would like to know whether in fact the Home Secretary agrees with that and with the implied slur that it casts on every other nation in the Western world. Is it suggested that that sort of statement should go forth to the world without repudiation from other Powers? Are we not to recognise the contributions made by other great and small Powers of the world than France and Britain? I suggest again that the inner meaning of that statement is in fact that Great Britain and France must assume to themselves the role of policemen of the world, and must delegate to an inferior position all other Powers, whether dictator Powers or democratic Powers.
Further, I wish to suggest that the reference of the Secretary of State for War to the necessity of close collaboration, not only cultural, but military as well, between ourselves and France, he would not dream of making respecting any other great Power in the world. Supposing he had stood up in Moscow and alleged that there should be a drawing together of the culture of Russia and this country, what a tremendous stampede there would have been away from him on the part of his own friends. What excitement there would have been in the ranks of the Government. If he is entitled to make this speech in Paris respecting the relationship of France and Britain, why should it not be proper to make the same sort of speech in any other capital of Europe regarding the possibility of collaboration and friendship between this country and any other Power as well?
The essential fact is—and there can be no frank and honest denial of it—that what many Members of the Government, if not the whole Government, consider now is that the League of Nations has broken down, that international co-operation is merely a dream. Many of them are grateful that the dream has been dispelled, that we can once more go back to power politics, that we may once more strive towards the old, vicious doctrine of the balance of power, which was partly responsible for the last War, and that we are getting down to what they think are


the realities, realities in terms of military scheming and preparation. Because of that, I suggest that there is a tremendous variance between at least the nominal, declared policy of the Government and the policy which apparently has been the policy of the Government for some time past. I want to finish by emphasising the fact that if we did enter the last War because our vital interests were at stake, and not because of any disinterested service of the cause of peace, and if we shall only support the League of Nations, or international co-operation, or any other kind of international friendship in so far as it coincides with our own particular interests, the interpretation of that phrase is not that it is of vital interest to some ethical order, but that our interest is purely of a capitalist and Imperialist type. I venture to suggest that it would be better if the Government were openly on this occasion to say, "We stand by the policy that has been expressed by the War Minister; it is the policy of being cynically realistic and of recognising that the League of Nations has gone. We must now get back to the old historic policy of balance of power"—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: We are not discussing what the policy of the Government might be, but the effect of the speech of the Secretary of State for War on foreign relations.

Mr. SORENSEN: I was trying to show that either the speech of the Secretary of State for War was an expression of the policy of the Government or it was not. I was suggesting that it is the policy of the Government and that that policy is one of military alliances, and, in this particular case, of a military alliance between ourselves and France, a policy which will lead to war and encourage other military alliances and bring about the destruction of all the culture of France and Britain and, indeed, of the western world. For this reason I hope that the Motion will be pressed to a Division and that we shall register the conviction that the real policy of the Government as already expressed, and as endorsed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping—a very significant endorsement—is a policy that undoubtedly will land us in the cauldron of destruction before many years have passed.

9.17 p.m.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Simon): The hon. Member for Shore-ditch (Mr. Thurtle), in the course of his speech just now, issued a challenge to me and invited me, if I could, to contradict what he was pleased to assert. What the hon. Member asserted was that the Foreign Secretary knew nothing about this speech, and he then proceeded, on that assumption and assertion, to make an attack upon the officials of the Foreign Office. The hon. Gentleman also observed in this connection that the answer which I gave at Question time could bear that interpretation. I will state what the fact is, and I will point out further to the House that if, indeed, the answer which I gave at Question time bore that interpretation, I was not very candid with the House. I stated at Question time that in its final form the speech did not come under the personal notice of the Foreign Secretary. I should have thought that most Members of the House would have considered that was proper language to use only if a draft had come before him. Apparently the hon. Gentleman opposite thinks otherwise. He not only thinks otherwise, but asserts otherwise and invites me to contradict it. I do contradict it. I contradict it flatly and absolutely.
The draft of the speech was sent to the Foreign Office and was seen personally by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) was correct when he made that inference, which is the only inference, I should have thought, that could be drawn from the answer I gave at Question time. The Foreign Secretary has an immense number of things to do, but he saw the draft, and the suggestions which were made and communicated from the Foreign Office to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War were suggestions which were made with the knowledge of the Foreign Secretary. At any rate, wherever the blame may lie, whoever chooses to be critical, let it be clear. It would be a grave injustice to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War if it were not clear. I tried to make it clear at Question time, and it would be a grave reflection on the officials of the Foreign Office if it were not clear. In these circumstances, it would be just as well—

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not know whether my right hon. Friend has passed away from the question whether the Foreign Secretary saw the speech. I understand that he saw the first draft of the speech and that certain alterations were made afterwards. I think we are entitled to ask whether those alterations were made verbal alterations or alterations of substance made to meet the Foreign Secretary's views; whether they represented the Foreign Secretary's views and whether he takes the responsibility for it. This is very vital, because if the Foreign Secretary saw it and approved it in substance, the responsibility is his much more than that of the Secretary of State for War.

Sir J. SIMON: My right hon. Friend was not here at the moment I began my speech, but I think that I made this matter as plain as I could. At Question Time again, when I do not think my right hon. Friend was here, I made the matter plain. I make no complaint, let us make it clear again now. The position as I understand it is this. The first draft of the speech was submitted to the Foreign Office. It came under review there and a number of suggestions were made. Those suggestions were communicated to my right hon. Friend after the Foreign Secretary had informed himself of what they were, and they were put forward with the Foreign Secretary's approval. Those suggestions were, in fact, incorporated in the speech.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: With the assent of the Foreign Secretary?

Sir J. SIMON: Will my right hon. Friend forgive me? I am really trying to state the facts. I repeat exactly what I said at Question Time—I can say no more—that in its final form the speech did not come under the personal notice of the Foreign Secretary. [Laughter.] What an admirable joke! The final form of the speech did not come under the personal notice of the Foreign Secretary, but this was due to the pressure of his other engagements, and was in no way intentional. Nothing could be plainer.
I put this point, and I put it specifically to those who are taking part in the Debate and those who think of voting later. It appears to me that a good

deal of the difference of view here is due to the fact that very few people have read this speech. How many Members of this House are there who have taken part in the Debate or who are going to take part, or have been cheering one side or the other, who could put their hands on their hearts and say, "I have read the speech"? Is it not a perfectly fair point to make? Does the House of Commons really think that the right way to proceed is to pronounce a condemnation on this subject without having read the speech? I am not demanding that everybody should read it in the French language, but I earnestly protest against the idea that you can form a conclusion on this matter from the comments and criticisms which may be found in, possibly, partisan papers.

Mr. SORENSEN: On a point of Order. Is it in order for the right hon. Gentleman to refer to us as having read merely partisan speeches, when in fact we have taken it from his own paper?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That is not a point of Order.

Sir J. SIMON: I would ask the House to listen to what I am going to say. There is nothing about it that is going to raise points of Order. It is plain that when this matter was first made the subject of adverse comment in this country, there existed an impression about this speech, however it arose, which is not justified by its terms. I have here the "News-Chronicle" for Friday, which published an article headed "Duff Cooper's Alliance Speech." We will see whether it says anything about an alliance. It goes on in an editorial to speak of
Mr. Cooper's advocacy of an immediate arid apparently isolated alliance between France and Great Britain.
and asks the rhetorical question, "Who authorised Mr. Duff Cooper to make this public plea for an Anglo-French alliance?" The answer is extremely simple—Nobody, and he did not do it. The lengths to which this impression went may be easily illustrated by a circumstance which I may retail to the House. On Friday last week I received from the Leader of the Opposition, and no doubt you, Sir, also received, notice of a Question which he wished to put on that day by private notice with reference to the speech of the Secretary of State for War.


What were the terms of the question which the Leader of the Opposition was minded to put on Friday? These are the terms:

Mr. ARTHUR GREENWOOD: Shame.

Sir J. SIMON: I would ask for your Ruling, Mr. Speaker. I wish to do nothing that is improper. I was proposing to call the attention of the House to the terms of the notice of a private notice question which I received from the Leader of the Opposition on Friday on this subject, as it appears to me to show the view that he then took. Perhaps you will tell me that I should not do that if I should not.

Mr. SPEAKER: I think the particular question sent to the right hon. Gentleman was similar to the one on the Paper. Is that not so?

Sir J. SIMON: Very nearly so.

Mr. SPEAKER: If that is the case, there is no reason why it should not be given.

Sir J. SIMON: All I want to do is to ask the House to realise that at the end of last week there began a widespread impression, not justified by the facts, that the Secretary of State for War had made a speech which, in fact, he did not make. These are the terms of the question:
To ask whether his attention has been called to the speech delivered in Paris on Wednesday evening last by the Secretary of State for War, and whether the views therein expressed as to the necessity for a military alliance between this country and France represent the policy of His Majesty's Government?
It must be plain to everybody that I am justified when I say there was at the end of last week a widespread impression, which I can show to the House was unjustified, that the Secretary of State for War went to Paris and proceeded to advocate a military alliance between this country and France. He did nothing of the kind. I challenge anybody in the House who has read the speech to contradict me. When we heard the Leader of the Opposition moving the Motion for the Adjournment I was not surprised that he adopted a very much lower tone. He said perfectly frankly and fairly, "We have not got the authoritative report, but

you may use pleas for better understanding between two countries in ways which would not make relations easier with a third," and he actually based his indictment, when he came to the point, on complaints as to the omission of the Secretary of State for War: Is the Secretary of State to be pilloried for the things he had not said?
I cannot help being reminded of a story which used to be current in the West Country of an old policeman who was advising a person he had arrested about the danger of making any statement, and said to him, "Now, prisoner, realise that whatever you say will be taken down, altered, and used against you." I would like most strongly to submit to the House that this criticism, which has been put by several speakers opposite, is really based on, a false premise. What my right hon. Friend advocated most warmly is an Anglo-French understanding, but it certainly is not true that he advocated an Anglo-French understanding at the expense of Germany. He does not seem to me to have done so, and I want to make three points firmly. In the first place, he never advocated any alliance, military or other, expressly or by implication, and those who take the other view must really be misinformed. He made a reference, it is true, to the frontier of the Rhine. Everybody knows that reference. It was made by the Prime Minister, and let the House realise that my right hon. Friend said he was referring to what the Prime Minister had already observed. You may approve of it or disapprove, but you certainly cannot say "This is some light-hearted departure from what has been already declared as the Government's view." I invite hon. Members opposite really to attend to this, and, in particular, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury), with his usual candour, will see the importance of it. There was a. passage in that speech which I should have thought would have received immense approval from right hon. and hon. Members opposite, and in view of it the amazing thing to me is the quarter from which criticism of the speech has come. I have taken the liberty of extracting some passages from this part of the speech of the Secretary of State for War and I ask the House to listen to them. He said:


People are preaching in Europe at this moment that liberty itself is a false ideal.

Mr. PRITT: On a point of Order. You, Mr. Speaker, and Mr. Deputy-Speaker, have called a number of Members to order because they were discussing the merits of the situation or the merits of the speech. As I understand it, the Debate is really limited to the question of whether the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War was expressing something contrary to the declared policy of the Government or not, and not the question whether he had said something praiseworthy.

Mr. SPEAKER: I did not hear the latter part of the hon. and learned Member's point of Order.

Mr. PRITT: I thought we were merely drawing a comparison between whether the right hon. Gentleman's speech corresponded with the policy of the Government, and not discussing whether he was saying something of which we on these benches might well approve. The Home Secretary is making many observations to which we on these benches could not reply without wandering far beyond your earlier Ruling.

Mr. SPEAKER: I imagined that the right hon. Gentleman was giving an account of what the Secretary of State for War had said to show whether it conflicted with the Government's policy or not.

Sir J. SIMON: I hope I shall not incur any reproach from any hon. Member if I quote passages from the speech itself. This is the passage I was quoting:
People are preaching in Europe at this moment that liberty itself is a false ideal, and that obedience is the highest form of human activity. There is nothing new in those ideas, but they are completely foreign to the civilisation of the western world. There are people who are preaching that war itself is desirable, that the spirit of youth ought to be impregnated with this principle: that to fight with your kind is the nature of man, and that death on the field of battle is the noblest and highest ambition.
Was not that well said? Are not these views, put forward, as it appears to me, in very moving terms, views which may be properly spoken by a Member of the British Government in Paris? The thing that amazes me is the quarter from which these criticisms come. My right

hon. Friend went on in his speech to refer to the ideals which the democracy of this country and the democracy of France shared and he said that those ideals were in danger. If I am not mistaken the hon. Member for Shoreditch positively made it a count in the indictment that the right hon. Gentleman had said there was imminent danger to those ideals.

Mr. THURTLE: The War Secretary talked about the grave menace which was confronting this country and France.

Sir J. SIMON: He spoke of the grave menace in connection with these ideals, ideals which, I am sure, the hon. Member most sincerely holds. I am sure he will be one of the first to agree that they are, indeed, in considerable danger. I really think that on this matter my right hon. Friend has been very hardly used. It is not for me to praise him. We all of us have our different styles in this matter. Whenever it happens to be my fortune, or misfortune, to make a speech I read the next day of how I made a discourse that was cold and lucid—how I hate the word—and if I advance an argument which nobody on the other side can, effectively contradict they say that what I have said is legalistic. Really, we must put up with one another's varied styles. There sits the Father of the House. No one would say that of his utterances. If my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) will forgive me for what might seem a personal impertinence—I do riot mean it in that way—sometimes when reflect on his methods I feel that he almost deserves the reproach addressed long ago by the young man to old Father William:
You are old Father William," the young man said,
And your hair has become very white—And yet you incessantly stand on your head;
Do you think at your age it is right?
No doubt my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War has his own special qualities. I do not think it is a very grave reproach to a man that when he is addressing a society which exists for the purpose of promoting Anglo-French friendship and a better feeling between the two peoples he should use language which is devoted to that aspect of the matter. It seems to me that he was well justified in saying that continued good


relations with France were desirable and must be pursued in all circumstances. He also made an observation which I should have thought would have appealed to some people when he went on to say that, while some people were urging that we should cultivate better relations with other nations, that did not in the least mean that we should qualify our friendly relations with the French. So much for the speech of the right hon. Gentleman.
I return, finally, to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswinford (Mr. A. Henderson). He said he hoped the Debate, whether justified or not, would at any rate have some happy result. I do not know I can honestly say that I think that the raising of this question by the Opposition at this time has been very helpful to the Foreign Secretary. I can see no possible ground for saying that we are departing from the principles which ought to govern our foreign policy because there is a reference to the fearful years of 1914–1918, but I think, as far as there has been any misunderstanding, that I ought to respond to the invitation of the hon. Member for Kingswinford and make it quite plain that there is, as he called it, no closing of the door to the possibility of peaceful agreement with the Germans. I cannot do that better than by reminding the House—as I said at Question Time—of the declaration made here with all solemnity by the Prime Minister himself only last week. The Leader of the Opposition had referred to the circumstance that it was the anniversary of the Battle of Waterloo and had made some observation about the comparative merits of Eton and Harrow, natural in a Haileybury boy. When the Prime Minister came to deal with those observations he said the reflection which was present in his own mind on the anniversary was something different. He said that on that anniversary date, some 121 years ago, we were fighting on the side of the Prussians to defeat the French. He went on to say that he reminded himself how 100 years later we were fighting on the side of the French to defeat those who had been our allies at Waterloo. Then the Prime Minister went on to say:
Has not the time come when it is possible for these three great countries to get together? So the second object of our policy is the appeasement of the situation in

Europe."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd June, 1936; col. 1730, Vol. 313.]

9.47 p.m.

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: The right hon. Gentleman has not disappointed us in the kind of speech he has made. It was exactly the kind of speech that we expected he would make. I would not call it lucid or legalistic, and I would call it—for the Home Secretary—only relatively cool, because he developed a little warmth and humour from time to time; but if he were appearing at the Bar I should have marked the brief at a low figure. We are in some difficulty in debating this matter, for it is a matter of the gravest doubt, when comparing the speech of the right. hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War with the official policy of the Government on foreign affairs, because we do not know what the Government's foreign policy exactly is. We are doing our best to guess at it. In so far as we can do so, we must make comparisons between the Government's foreign policy, as revealed in statements in this House and by the statements of the Foreign Secretary in the country, and the speech of the Secretary of State for War. [Hon. MEMBERS: "Have you read it?"] I have read all the available accounts that have been published. To that point I will at once direct my attention.
The only accounts available, so far as I know, are those which have been published in the newspaper Press, both here and in France, and how could we read anything else when nothing else has been supplied to us? The Government must have known, when the accounts of the speech were published in the Press, and comments were made upon it, that there would be a dispute in this House about the speech. If they had wanted the Opposition to be acquainted with the whole speech, why did the Government not take the precaution of sending to my right hon. Friend a full copy of the speech and say: "You will probably be tempted—." [Laughter.] If hon. Members have not the least idea how to take precautions in a matter of this kind, I cannot help them. I can only say that the speech was bound to be the subject of a dispute and a Debate in the House. Somebody from the Government should have written to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition


to say, "We think you may be tempted to have a dispute about this speech, and it is, therefore, obvious that you should have it before you. Let us supply you with a verbatim report of the actual speech that was made." That was not done. If the Government want the whole of the speech to be judged upon its merits, let them lay the speech as a White Paper on the Table of the House, and let the whole House have the full report of what was said, and let the country know.
No contradictions have appeared in the Press about the speech. If the speech was inaccurate and the reports given were misleading to such an extent that it was likely to have a bad effect upon the conduct of foreign affairs, was it not the duty of the Government to issue a correction and say what was the proper meaning to be placed upon the speech? They have not done so, for the reason that they know that the reports of the speech which appeared in the Press are substantially accurate. The right hon. Gentleman is, therefore, riding off, as he usually does, on a purely debating point by saying that we have not seen the whole speech and that we cannot judge of it. If that is a valid point, we ought to have been supplied with a copy of the speech. If the reports have been tendentious and misleading, somebody should have issued a correction on behalf of the Government to the newspapers of the country. The Government have not done so, and the obvious reason is that there is nothing substantially wrong with the reports which have appeared.
I venture to take the House through the reports, not in a Liberal or Labour newspaper, but in a highly respectable Conservative newspaper, which is daily in touch with the Conservative Central office and takes its politics usually from that organisation. [Interruption.] I do not mind being interrupted, if that is all it is, but the interruption must be open and above board. The Home Secretary to-day answered the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreditch (Mr. Thurtle) and the questions of other hon. Members. I suggest that the answer which he gave is somewhat different in tone and temper from the speech he has now made. He said:
My right hon. Friend was addressing a society which exists for the purpose of

promoting friendly relations between France and Great Britain, and his remarks were, of course, not a declaration of policy.
The right hon. Gentleman now says that the speech was not only submitted to the Foreign Office, but was seen as a first draft by the Secretary of State. [An HON. MEMBER: "He said it then."] No, he did not say so then. I will go through the whole answer in a minute. He submitted the speech to the Foreign Office. It was seen as a first draft by the Secretary of State himself and was approved in principle. In those circumstances the answer of the Home Secretary to-night means that it was in fact a declaration of Government policy. It was not a declaration of Government policy, says the Home Secretary,
but a speech devoted to stressing the elements common to the people of both countries. The place for a declaration of Government policy is the House of Commons, and that policy was fully stated by the Foreign Secretary and by the Prime Minister in the course of the Debates in this House on 18th June and 23rd June, respectively. The observations of my right hon. Friend were not designed to be in conflict with their declarations at all.
If the place for a declaration of Government policy is this House, I deduce that that was a rebuke to the Secretary of State for War that he had made what indeed proves to be a declaration of Government policy, not to this House, not even to a British audience, but to an audience in the capital city of a foreign nation. Finally, the Home Secretary said:
In fairness to my right hon. Friend I should like to add that he submitted a draft of his speech to the Foreign Office, and subsequently altered it in certain respects in response to their suggestions"—
their suggestions.
I understand that in its final form the speech did not come under the personal notice of the Foreign Secretary, but this was due to the pressure of his other engagements and was in no way intentional.
If my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreditch deduced from that answer that the Foreign Secretary himself had not seen it, it was a perfectly legitimate deduction, and it is the fault of the Home Secretary that that deduction was drawn. We of course now accept the assurance of the Home Secretary that the Foreign Secretary did in fact See


the first draft, but even so it is admitted that the final draft of what was obviously an exceedingly important speech on foreign policy was not actually approved by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, who has officially to conduct the business of this country with foreign States. Our first charge against the Government, in any case, is that certainly no Minister, speaking to an audience in the capital city of a foreign country ought to make a speech, important, tendentious towards a certain direction of foreign policy which I will soon indicate, unless that speech had been specifically, in general and in detail, approved by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. It is perfectly obvious that he ought not to do so, for in these matters of declarations of foreign policy, speaking in a country which has a certain line of foreign policy, and which vis-a-vis Germany has certain interests—it is not only in those particular and dangerous circumstances important that the general run and tendency of the speech should be sound, but it is even important that the tempo of it, the detail of it, and every word of it should be carefully examined from the point of view of the practical conduct of foreign affairs. That was not done. It is true according to the Home Secretary that the Foreign Secretary did see it, but it is also true that, after its first submission, the final draft, including modifications that were made, was not approved by the Foreign Secretary, but was apparently approved by the officials at the Foreign Office. That may be the Government's way of conducting foreign affairs; it is not ours—[Laughter]—and may I say it never was ours. I am perfectly willing to submit to the impartial consideration of the House, if the House is in the mood to give it impartial consideration, a comparison of our record in foreign affairs with that of the Government.
The truth is that the Government have got into a state of utter irresponsibility in the conduct of foreign affairs. The only public speech in the country that has been made on foreign affairs by the Foreign Secretary indicating the Government's foreign policy—the speech with which we are bound to compare this speech—made

in his own constituency a week or two ago, was not consistent with this speech, and was not consistent with the 1900 Club speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer; and it would seem to be the case that the only Member of the Government who is not prepared to make specific declarations of foreign policy, particularly if there is a change in foreign policy—the only Minister who has his lips sealed, the only Minister who is not permitted to talk—is the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs himself. That really is an intolerable state of affairs.
The right hon. Gentleman complains that the "News Chronicle" editorially said that this amounted to a military alliance with France, and condemned it accordingly. Let us look at this speech. I will not quote the "Daily Herald," because I know that hon. Gentlemen opposite have prejudices. I am not quoting the "News Chronicle," because they would not rely upon that. I am
not quoting even the "Times," which is not always in line with Government foreign policy, and quite rightly so. I will quote the "Daily Telegraph," which may always be relied upon to do whatever the Conservative Central Office tells it to do. I want hon. Members to listen to this, and not to jump to conclusions before I have made the comment I have to make upon it. This is a report of a speech in Paris, in the midst of Ministers of the French Government, on a highly important occasion. I want to go through the speech in stages and try to get an estimate of where it takes us in foreign policy, and, in particular, what effect it was likely to have upon French minds. It referred to the necessity of Franco-British friendship. That is quite all right. I have done it myself, as, I am sure, all of us have, and feel that we ought to do. We want to be friends with everybody, even hon. Gentlemen opposite—sometimes. The Secretary of State for War said:
'It is not a question of sentiment or of choice,' he declared, 'it is one of vital interest for our two countries.' Englishmen who proposed the reorientation of our foreign policy and the choice of other friends, did not understand that a nation was not free to choose her collaborators. They were imposed upon it by facts. 'Both peoples are placed before a necessity, not a choice. Mr. Baldwin has said


that the British frontier is the Rhine. Your frontier"—
said the Secretary of State for War—
is our frontier.'
What does that mean? Really, it is no good the Secretary of State for Home Affairs quibbling about words. It is no use the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) quibbling about words. His support of the Government to-night was, I am sure, most valuable to them, though I think he had apprehensions that they were going to drop the Secretary of State for War, and proposed to make his contribution to the stiffening of the Cabinet. It is no use quibbling about words. That would give—and there are other words which confirm it—an indication to French minds, and I venture to say it is even an indication to our own minds, that in any circumstances, irrespective of the merits of the case, if France is involved in war, Britain must be in it on the side of France. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] That is the inevitable interpretation in French minds. I understand that a French Minister who was present said that it was a splendid speech, not only for what was in it but for what the French could read between the lines. And is it not altogether legitimate that the French should read between the lines in the direction I have indicated? It is not illegitimate; it is a perfectly reasonable thing for them to do. So in the first place there are statements made, confirmed later on, in which he says that in 1914 we did not fight for justice, we did not fight for principles; we fought for solid, British self-interest. That confirms the point that, if France is in a war, we have to be in it irrespective of the merits of the case. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I am sorry, but it is "Yes."
Now let us consider the second point. We all know, and we deplore it, that the obvious possible military opponent of France is Germany. We wish it were not so, but we all know it. We know that, in relation to French and to Russian policy, Germany is the key to the whole situation. Therefore, whatever you say about Germany must be of particular importance, even here, but doubly so when you are speaking to a Parisian audience with French Ministers present. I am not complaining about what the right hon. Gentleman said as words. I have said much worse things about the

Nazi regime in Germany, and so have my hon Friends. I have said pretty severe things about Herr Hitler. So have my hon. Friends. We say them as politicians because we believe them. We wish that hon. Members opposite were as indignant as we are about it, and we are not sure that they are. But when a Minister of the Crown speaks in this way—we are not Ministers of the Crown—[interruption.] But we are going to be, and we are much more fit to be Ministers of the Crown than some. When a Minister speaks, especially a Member of the Cabinet, the Secretary of State for War, he has to consider not only the literal truth of the words that he is uttering but the effect that they are going to have upon French and other minds as an interpretation of British foreign policy. So he went on and this is what he said. It is obviously an attack upon Germany. It might equally be an attack upon Italy. I agree, but in view of the Government's recent policy in that direction I cannot believe it. It is obviously a criticism of the German Nazi outlook and not an unfair criticism of it. He says:
Indeed at this moment in Europe people are teaching that liberty is a false ideal and that obedience to a man's will is the highest form of human activity. Such ideas contain nothing new. They are as old as tyranny, and are completely foreign to the civilisation of Western Europe. Finally, people are preaching to all the winds that war itself is desirable, and that the spirit of youth must be impregnated with the principle that to fight one's fellow human beings is in the nature of man, and that death on the battlefield must be our highest ambition.
There are two implications about that, and really it is no good hedging about it. One is that it was Nazi Germany that was in the right hon. Gentleman's mind. The second is that, having praised French liberty and democracy, quite rightly—I respect it enormously, as we do our own—and having said that their frontier is our frontier, and having implied that if they are in a war we are in it, irrespective of the merits of the case, what is the obvious interpretation? That the Secretary for War was apprehensive about German militarist policy, that France was apprehensive about German military policy, and that France might rely upon Great Britain to stand by France in the case of attack by Germany, or, in the case of France being involved in a war with Germany, which is very different. Locarno binds this country to come to the


rescue of France if attacked by Germany, but Locarno also binds this country to come to the rescue of Germany if Germany is attacked by France. Very well. But what becomes of the talk about "Your frontier is our frontier"? What becomes of the talk that our country's material interests are so bound up with the interests of France that the entente cordiale not only means a verbal understanding and a friendly agreement but that in fact it had the effect of a covenant?

Mr. LENNOX-BOYD: It is not the policy of the right hon. Gentleman's party, since Germany's repudiation of Locarno, that our obligations are now solely towards France?

Mr. MORRISON: That, no doubt, reveals the state of mind of the Conservative party. Now that Locarno and other things have gone we have to make a military alliance with France. It is not our policy. [An HON. MEMBER: "Is it theirs?"] I do not know if it is the policy of the Government. I want to know. Surprising as it may seem to the hon. Member, this party still stands for the League of Nations. I have no doubt that that is received with scorn and deprecation by hon. Members opposite, but that is where we stand. We stand where we stood at the General Election. The Government stands on its head. The right hon. Gentleman went on to give the impression that the French should not take the English people too seriously. Let them not worry too much about that. Let them listen to him. That is what he meant:
The English are a sentimental people and their feelings blind them very often in the face of facts. The consequences of this blindness are deplorable.
There is something in that sometimes, I agree. He went on to say:
They prefer to think that they are the friends of the French because the French are delightful people, and they imagine that they could abandon this friendship for the sake of another if they happened to find the French less charming.
What does that mean? It means first of all, "Do not worry too much about the English people. They are a funny lot. They are sentimental. Do not bother about them too much. Listen to my firm, reliable Government. If there is any

suggestion that our country in certain circumstances might be associated with another country, do not believe it." That confirms the whole idea that this was a rigid declaration that in any circumstances, whatever the merits of the case, this country would be in a war if France was in a war, however France got into that war. If the Government has decided that it is going to shape its foreign policy on the basis of Germany being a potential enemy, and that all our foreign policy has to be based on that fact, and that, therefore, we must make a binding agreement with France, and possibly others, it is a foreign policy which I understand and one for which there may be an arguable case by intelligent people. I do not agree with it because I am a League man. If the Government are going for that policy let them deliberately consider it. Let the Cabinet discuss it. Let the Foreign Secretary argue with the Cabinet and the Ministry with the Foreign Secretary. Above all, if you want to change your foreign policy on the basis of getting back to pre-war alliances, I say to the Government, "For Heaven's sake do it knowing what you are doing; do it with deliberation, and, above all, do not let the Secretary of State for War lose all responsibility, and, out of the void, make a declaration of that policy to a public gathering in Paris. If you are coming to that policy, think it out. Come to your conclusions, and, as the Home Secretary said this afternoon, in that case, it should be the House of Commons and not Paris that ought to hear the first thing about a grave and important declaration of foreign policy."
There were omissions from the speech. My right hon. Friend said so, and the Home Secretary, endeavouring to be humorous—I would not discourage him at all, as I welcome it—said that it was an extraordinary thing that the Leader of the Opposition, in complaining about the speech, almost complained that there was not more of it, almost implying that it would be worse if there was more of it. I am inclined to think that would be so. But we are inclined to complain about the omissions. Have the Government thrown over the League of Nations? If they have not, why did not the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War talk about the League of Nations except as a joke? Have the Government thrown


over the covenant? If not, why did not the right hon. Gentleman say so. If the Government have not thrown over collective security, why did not the Secretary for War say that the Government stood by collective security?
We are faced with a speech of this kind, which, however fairly examined, drives you to the conclusion that he was promising an unconditional and unrestricted military alliance with France in the case of war, and that he was predisposed to an attitude of opposition to Germany. And he says nothing about the League of Nations, nothing about the covenant, and nothing about collective security. Surely, that is one of the most damaging statements of foreign policy that really is imaginable. In any case, if that is the policy of the Government, and if they are seeking alliances against Germany—and I do not want to prejudge the issue; I only say that there is an arguable case for it, although I do not agree with it because I prefer the League—if that is the conclusion to which the Government have come, the speech of the Secretary of State for War, which we now find was approved by the Foreign Secretary in principle, if that is so, is the House of Commons the only place that cannot be told about it? Are the representatives of the people in Parliament assembled the only people who cannot be informed? Have these vital and significant declarations of foreign policy either to be made in Paris to an audience in the presence of Ministers of a foreign country, or have they to be made at the 1900 Club, which, I admit, would be appropriate, because that date certainly dated the outlook on foreign affairs of the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he made his speech?
Finally, the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister is responsible for the coordination of Government policy. He is responsible for keeping Ministers in order. If Ministers get out of order, if they jump, over the traces and deal with matters which are not their business, if they go abroad and make important declarations of foreign policy, not only the Minister must be held accountable, but the Prime Minister, in particular, must be held responsible. I was at Colchester on Saturday and I said that in my judgment this country has been almost without a Prime Minister since 1931, and we

are suffering for it. It is so vitally important in these matters of foreign policy that the world should know where the British Government stand, and honestly the world does not know from day to day and week to week.
It is vitally important that, in a speech to an individual foreign country, that country should not be misled as to where Great Britain stands. I am not sure that France was not misled by that speech. I am not sure that the world is not in a state of complete doubt as to the policy of the British Government. Certainly the British people are in doubt. I say with no party bias or party passion but as a British citizen, proud of my country, that it is a misfortune for the good name of my country as a whole that this kind of contrary and irresponsible stuff about foreign policy should be distributed by Ministers who really ought to be kept under proper control and under proper supervision. It is bad for our country, it is bad for the world, it is bad for the peace of the world, and I would beg of the Prime Minister to try to exert his authority and see to it that his Ministers do not run all over the place like this.
The Prime Minister at the time of the Hoare-Laval discussions said that he had come to the conclusion that it was a somewhat dangerous thing that British Ministers should meet the Ministers of foreign Governments in their own Capitals, and that in future he would sooner these things were done through the usual official diplomatic channels than that they should be done by individual contact between the Ministers of this country and the Ministers of foreign countries, except at Geneva. M. Blum, the Prime Minister of France, wanted to meet our Foreign Secretary before our Italian-Abyssinian policy was finally settled. The Foreign Secretary refused to meet him. Presumably that was a Government decision. I do not argue whether it was right or wrong, but if it was dangerous for the Foreign Secretary, under cool and calm conditions, across a table, to discuss the foreign situation upon which our Government was about to commit Great Britain in a way that was bound to have repercussions upon other countries, if it was undesirable for the Foreign Secretary himself to meet the Prime Minister of France, how much more undesirable was it after a dinner, after a


banquet, with all the excitement of a public gathering, for the Secretary of State for War to make a speech of this kind? It is utterly inconsistent with the declaration of the Prime Minister upon that point.
We think that the Government are guilty in this matter of irresponsibility and of doing things that are very dangerous indeed. I have no personal prejudice against the Secretary of State for War. He and I spoke in Hackney a year or two ago on the League of Nations. I do not know who made the best speech for the League, he or I, but I do know that he is a little hard on people who interfere in business with which in his judgment they ought not to interfere. It was the right hon. Gentleman who said:
Who are these ignorant clergymen who presume to give advice to His Majesty's Government on foreign affairs?
Who is the Secretary of State for War, speaking in Paris, to presume to give advice to the Foreign Secretary on foreign affairs? True, he has gone back on the League of Nations since then. He advised everybody not to answer the questions of the League of Nations Union. He is pretty free in public speeches and pretty severe on other people. Surely, he ought to observe ordinary Ministerial conduct, and ought not to interfere with the business of other people in the Government. I admit that he has a higher precedent in the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was just as bad in another way. All this indicates that this Government is at sixes and sevens. It is not a team but an aggregation of conflicting units. It is not fit to govern the country. It is not fit to conduct our affairs. It is a danger to our country and a danger to the peace and security of the world. Whatever the result of the Division to-night, we know that we have successfully launched another indictment of the Government. We know that the Government have once more been exposed as an incompetent body of men. It will be a good thing for our country and for the security of the world when it has been destroyed and rules our country no more.

10.25 p.m.

Earl WINTERTON: The House will agree that it is not right, even at this

late hour of the evening, that the speech of the right hon. Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison) should go unanswered. There was a clue to the real object of this Motion in the closing words of his speech. With an air of unctuous rectitude the right hon. Gentleman said that he was the last man who wanted to make party capital out of a matter of this kind—and incidentally the relations of this country and France is one of the most delicate questions which can be discussed—and then, in his peroration, with great satisfaction, looking round to hon. Members behind him who were getting rather lax in their cheers, he said that they at any rate would be able to say that they had launched one more indictment against His Majesty's Government. That very clearly explains the object of this Adjournment Motion.
I must confess that, like many other hon. Members, I was completely puzzled until I heard the speech of the right hon. Member for South Hackney as to what was the gravamen of the charge against the Government. We were completely puzzled. We saw the Opposition come down to the House in a highly strung state of mind, obviously excited about something which had occurred, but until we heard the closing words of the right hon. Member for South Hackney we were completely puzzled as to their object in moving the Adjournment. The speech to which hon. Members opposite have taken objection was made in a country across the Channel, in which there is a Government to which His Majesty's Opposition in this country are most friendly; indeed, they are so friendly that they sent the Leader of the Opposition to see the man who was obviously going to be the future Premier of France. Moreover, both this country and France are going through a very difficult period, because quite frankly neither of them knows what the policy of a certain great country is going to be. That is common ground between us.
France also has been going through very difficult times in another connection. What is wrong, what is there unusual, what is there unreasonable in the Secretary of State for War, who is probably better known in France than any Member of this House, who has strong cultural relationships with France, who has written one of the best lives written in recent years of a great Frenchman, and who is an admirable French scholar—what


is wrong and unusual in the right hon. Gentleman, as the guest of an organisation to which, I understand, hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite belong—the Association France-Grande Bretagne—going there to make a speech? I mention that point because in several of the speeches which have been made to-night, and in some of the comments in the Press it seems to have been assumed that per se it is completely wrong for any Minister except the Foreign Minister ever to refer to foreign affairs. That is the most extraordinary thing I have ever heard. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), whom we are all glad to see so rejuvenated by the speech he made 10 days ago, nodded his head in apparent acquiesence when somebody referred to the inconvenience of any Minister except the Foreign Minister referring to foreign affairs. Surely that is a most novel theory.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The Noble Lord and my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) are referring to a particular incident when, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, I made a rather important pronouncement on foreign affairs in reference to Germany. No one knows better than my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping that before I delivered that speech I saw both the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary. They both read the speech word by word, and I delivered it as it was finally revised by both, and did it at their request because they thought it was an occasion on which it was desirable that something should be said. That is why I have been trying to ask the Home Secretary—and even now I do not know—whether the Secretary of State for War made that speech after submitting it to the Foreign Secretary, and if he did, then it is the Foreign Secretary who ought to be arraigned and not the Secretary of State for War.

Earl WINTERTON: The right hon. Gentleman is too complimentary to me. I drew my bow at a venture and the arrow went completely home. I had quite forgotten about the speech in question. Something told me, as I looked at the right hon. Gentleman, that I should get him on to his feet my making a reference to his acquiescence. [An HON. MEMBER: "To his past."] Not to his past, for that

would lead us a long way off. What is really the issue between us? As I understand it, the right hon. Gentleman contends that it is wrong that any Minister except the Foreign Minister should make a speech on foreign affairs unless that speech has been submitted to the Foreign Secretary. That is an extremely novel theory. I think it would be quite intolerable in the case of a great neighbouring country such as France that a Minister—I do not care who he is—who goes there as the guest of an association of the importance of the one to which I have referred should not be allowed to refer to the relationship existing between these two countries. Let me take two or three points in connection with the speech, and first of all, the point to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping referred. The Secretary of State for War made no reference to a military alliance. I challenge any hon. Member in any part of the House—and I will resume my seat for the purpose of hearing the challenge answered—to find a word in that speech which made the faintest reference to a military alliance.

Mr. H. MORRISON: My answer is that the Secretary of State for War did something infinitely worse. He promised France unconditional support in any circumstances.

HON. MEMBERS: No.

Earl WINTERTON: He did nothing of the sort. I am a great admirer of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, but he ought not to make statements of that kind in matters of life and death. He ought not to give the impression to the French people or anybody else that any such unconditional promise was made on behalf of His Majesty's Government. No foundation for that statement can be found in the speech, and even if my right hon. Friend did refer to the possibility of joint military action in certain circumstances, what complaint could there be of that? Not only the Government but I understand the whole House—and I shall be glad to have information from the Opposition as to their attitude—have agreed to the talks between the military staffs. What then would be the objection, even if my right hon. Friend had made a reference to a military alliance in certain circumstances? The Opposition the other day charged the Government with having run away in regard to another matter,


but they appear to be running away from the responsibilities which they have under the Covenant and the Treaty of Locarno. Of course, there must be situations in which military arrangements between the two countries would make it necessary to have staff talks.
My right hon. Friend made no attack on the Covenant or on the League. Someone has suggested that he ought to have referred to nothing but the Covenant and thy League. Why? He was speaking in a country which is supposed to be friendly to this country and to which this country is supposed to be friendly. In parenthesis, may I say that I have always been able to assure my friends in France, until this evening, that the Socialist Opposition in this country were friendly to French ideas and ideals because they held those ideas and ideals in common. It appears to-night that they are quite unwilling to defend them. Lastly, it is suggested that while my right hon. Friend made no specific reference to Germany he indicated Germany in his speech. Would it have been a great offence if he had done so? The Leader of the Opposition has used these words:
We on this side abominate the doctrine of Nazi Germany and the preaching of war in Germany.
If so, why be so mealy-mouthed, not about a specific reference but about a supposed reference to Germany? The whole attitude of the Opposition seems to be "You must not refer to Germany. You must not say anything to hurt the feelings of Herr Hitler." What an extraordinary attitude, in view of the speeches which were made and the pamphlets distributed last year at the Trade Unions Congress. Surely the Opposition can find some other stick with which to beat the Secretary of State for War. That one will break in their hands.
When it comes to the positive part of my right hon. Friend's speech I consider that the very eloquent terms in which he spoke about the common object and the common ideals of this country and France were fully justified. What did he say? He spoke of the defence of the individual, surely a common concern at least of the majority of people in this country—I cannot speak for the Opposition—and practically the whole of France. Then he spoke of the depreciation of the glory of war. Incidentally hon. and right hon. Gentle-

ment opposite seem to suppose that France is a very bellicose country. I cannot help thinking that in their objection to my right hon. Friend's speech there is the suggestion that he made it in a country where there are bellicose ideas. Let me assure the House that there is no country in Europe more pacifist than France, more anxious to work with any other great democracy for the sake of the ideas and ideals which they hold in common. Then why attack the Secretary of State for War for making this speech?
I protest against certain of the allusions that have been made, the sneering references to the convivial atmosphere, the after-dinner speeches, and things of that kind. It will be an ill day when Ministers of either the Government of the French Republic or of His Majesty in this House cannot be entertained by the people of the other country and be permitted to make speeches. This Debate, so far as the House is concerned, will soon pass away and be forgotten, and there is no question about how the voting will go, but I do say with all earnestness to the Opposition that I am seriously concerned at the way in which foreign affairs appear to be becoming more and more the battledore and shuttlecock of party politics. I agree with some of the criticisms made. As is well known, I myself, as an independent Member, have criticised the Prime Minister, and may do so again, and I am not saying the blame is wholly on one side, but anything more deplorable than having Debate after Debate, Votes of Censure, and Adjournment Motions to call attention to alleged lapses of foreign policy, when the whole of Europe is in the melting pot and when we may wake up to-morrow to find a condition of affairs which, believe me, would bring every Member of this House on the same side—I do the Opposition the credit of saying that—when we are in that sort of state, surely to move the Adjournment of the House in order to call attention to the alleged indiscretion of a Minister, and to buttress your case with such miserably weak arguments, is not in the public interest.
Surely hon. and right hon. Members opposite, if they wish to rehabilitate themselves—and I may say in parentheses that while it is true that the Government are being criticised, it is equally true that that criticism is not bringing a


single vote to the Opposition, who are known to be as divided on foreign policy as any party can be—surely what we want to get in this House is a common foreign policy. Surely we want to avoid this pot and kettle business across the Floor, whether this speech means that or that speech means this. Let us all try, when we have disposed of this Motion, to present a common front in the face of one of the most appalling dangers with which we have ever been faced.

10.43 p.m.

Mr. PRITT: There has been, in the speeches of a good many Members addressing the House to-night, and taking a very particular form in the speech of the Noble Lord the right hon. Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton), a very grave misunderstanding. It has been repeatedly stated that the Opposition to-night is either attacking or expressing its disapproval of the French people. I regret to find that the same illusion was cherished by the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Nicolson), who has not even the excuse of being an amateur in foreign politics. It is of the greatest importance that the House, and indeed the world, should understand exactly what we are discussing to-night. The Noble Lord, who is an old and respected Member a the House, seemed to be in complete bewilderment as to what the House was discussing, both on the terms of the Motion and on the Ruling that you, Mr. Speaker, gave earlier in the Debate. We are discussing whether, in the speech made in Paris by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, who is obviously capable of being finely eloquent in two languages and of expressing remarkably fine thoughts, he did express, as if they were the policy of this country, policies, plans, ententes, arrangements, which were gravely in contradiction of the policy that has been enunciated by His Majesty's Government from time to time, in so far as they have enunciated a policy. That has nothing to do with the question whether we approve or disapprove of French foreign policy or whether we think France is bellicose. We know that France is not now bellicose, because she has a strong Government, which we welcome.
It was even suggested by the hon. Member for West Leicester that the

matter ought not to be discussed at all lest it should be misinterpreted in France, and as a diplomat he knows how easily things can be misinterpreted. That is the vital thing that must be done in this House, however. We do not do it out of party bias. It is easy to accuse us of party bias. If the Government do something wrong, collectively or severally, it is the duty of the Opposition and the House generally to attack it and control it. If the foreign policy of the Government can be dictated first at the 1900 Club, and then at an eminent gathering in Paris, the next divergence from the League of Nations and from Locarno will perhaps be announced at the country house of some Noble Lord who is a Member of this House, or perhaps from the National Liberal Club if a meeting can be gathered together there. Why should not the right hon. Gentleman make a speech in Paris, says the Noble Lord? There is no reason why he should not. The two languages are enriched by his doing it, but a war may be caused by his doing it if the speech he makes is so different from the British Government's policy that France thinks she can rely on it, and discovers once again that she is only in the same position as Abyssinia and Denmark and half the other countries which tried to rely on the word of England in the past.
The matter really rests in a very small compass. We do not attack in any way the relations of this country with France. We do not attack—many of us certainly do not dream of attacking—the actual sentiments, as sentiments, expressed by the right hon. Gentleman, however much or little is read into them. We attack one thing only. In attacking it we are attacking the Government perhaps more than we are attacking the right hon. Gentleman. We say that it is fatal to orderly and consistent government in this country if an important Minister with or without—perhaps it is better to know in some ways that it is with—the sanction of those of his colleagues who are most directly involved, can make speeches that are widely divergent from the policy of the Government in a foreign country, and never be checked. I can illustrate the difficulty by putting a single question, a question which is being asked by everybody. If you read the speech of the right hon. Gentleman


fairly and ignore the more philosophical references which are not the vital and operative part of the speech from a political point of view, and spell out of it reasonably a policy such as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison) or as the "Telegraph" spelled out, is that or is it not the policy of His Majesty's Government? Nobody knows and nobody can feel quite sure whether it really does represent the policy of the Government, and the mere fact that nobody knows is the strongest illustration that you could possibly desire to have to illuminate the incredible dangers and difficulties that will be caused if Ministers cannot make up their minds what the policy of the Government is and express it consistently in the proper place.

10.49 p.m.

Captain HAROLD BALFOUR: The hon. and learned Gentleman who has just spoken on the need for international good will gave his contribution towards European peace and good will, if I remember aright, by presiding over the unofficial tribunal which investigated the Reichstag fire. His speech is consistent with the speeches which we have heard from the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, the hon. Member for Kingswinford (Mr. A. Henderson) and the hon. Member for Shoreditch (Mr. Thurtle), all of whom made the most staggering contradictions in the light of the previous declarations of their own party's policy. The hon. Member for Kingswinford said that there was distrust and that misunderstanding had grown up and was growing up with Germany as a result of this speech. The hon. Member for Shoreditch (Mr. Thurtle) complained that there was now a delicacy of negotiation with Germany. The Leader of the Opposition dealt with the need for a calm, cool, collected and reasonable outlook. It seems to me that these are peculiar statements from Members of the Opposition, when only a few months ago the National Council of Labour published a statement "Hit Hitler," and the Socialist party were advocating the economic boycott, the workers' weapon, and saying that workers everywhere should use it against Hitler. It seems to me that they have had a complete turnabout as regards their views. I took down other inconsistencies by Members

of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition said that it was the duty of the Prime Minister to be responsible for the efficient conduct of foreign affairs. No one would dispute that. Let me take up the point which the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) made. It seems to me peculiar that one who speaks with all the authority of the Leader of the Opposition should himself go over to France and meddle with the Crown Prince, the heir-apparent, who was trying on the Crown.

Mr. ATTLEE: I have not met any Crown Prince at all.

Captain BALFOUR: The other day the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) said that the Chancellor of the Exchequer because of his recent speech, was, as the heir apparent, trying on the Crown. Was not M. Blum in the same position when the Leader of the Opposition went across to France? The Leader of the Opposition said that the omissions and exclusions in the speech of the Secretary of State for War were almost as bad as what he said. Is this a new standard of debate which we are to have? Are we to say that the Leader of the Opposition made a splendid speech to-day because he left out everything which he ought to have said? This seems to be a new doctrine. If the hallmark of success is to be omissions and exclusions in a speech no doubt the Opposition will win all along the line.

Mr. ATTLEE: The hon. Gentleman is mistaken. I complained that the speech of the Secretary of State for War was incomplete and did not give the whole picture.

Captain BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman complained of omissions and exclusions, thereby meaning that a speech can be criticised because it has omissions and exclusions. If you are to criticise a speech because it leaves out something, that is to be the new standard of speeches. A speech is to be good because it left out something. The truth is that the Opposition, who to-day have put down this Motion for the Adjournment, are the party who have done more than anyone towards harming foreign affairs in Europe and stirring up discord in order to try to gain a party advantage. They are the party who to-day are more responsible for stirring dis-


content and causing strife than any one. And bringing into the arena of party our foreign policy which has hitherto been traditionally a unified policy. Finally, the right hon. Gentleman said that every Minister ought to submit the draft of his speeches to the Prime Minister. If that is to be the new doctrine of the Opposition, then, indeed, we shall have a variety of speeches from them, because the agreement to differ has been more evident in the Socialist

party than in any other party. The policy of agreement to differ has been one which they have had to adopt, because they have all thought differently on one and the same problem, as has been illustrated in their speeches to-night when contrasted with their speeches in the past.

Question put, "That this House do now adjourn."

The House divided: Ayes, 136; Noes, 284.

Division No. 257.]
AYES.
[10.56 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke
Grenfell, D. R.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Ha'kn'y, S.)


Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Morrison, R. C.(Tottenham, N.)


Adams, D. (Consett)
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Naylor, T. E.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Oliver, G. H.


Adamson, W. M.
Groves, T. E.
Paling, W.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'[...]sbr.)
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Parker, J.


Ammon, C. G.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Hardie, G. D.
Potts, J.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Pritt, D. N.


Banfield, J. W.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Quibell, D. J. K.


Barnes, A. J.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Batey, J.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Riley, B.


Bellenger, F.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Rltson, J.


Benson, G.
Holdsworth, H.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Broad, F. A.
Hollins, A.
Rowson, G.


Bromfield, W.
Hopkin, D.
Salter, Dr. A.


Brooke, W.
Jagger, J.
Seely, Sir H. M.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Sexton, T. M.


Cape, T.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Shinwell, E.


Cassells, T.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Short, A.


Charleton, H. C.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Silkin, L.


Chater, D.
Jones, H. Haydn (Merloneth)
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Cluse, W. S.
Jones, J. J. (Silvertown)
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Compton, J.
Kelly, W. T.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Cove, W. G.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Sorensen, R. W.


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Kirby, B. V.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Daggar, G.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
Lathan, G.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Lawson, J. J.
Thurtle, E.


Day, H.
Leach, W.
Tinker, J. J.


Dabbie, W.
Lee, F.
V[...]ant, S. P.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Leslie, J. R.
Walker, J.


Ede, J. C.
Logan, D. G.
Watkins, F. C.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Lunn, W.
Watson, W. McL.


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
McEntee, V. La T.
Welsh, J. C.


Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
McGhee, H. G.
Whiteley, W.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
MacLaren, A.
Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)


Frankel, D.
Maclean, N.
Williams, E. J.(Ogmore)


Gardner, B. W.
MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Garro Jones, G. M.
MacNe[...], Weir, L.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Carn'v'n)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Marklew, E.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Messer, F.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Milner, Major J.



Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Montague, F.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Mr. John and Mr. Mathers.




NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thnnet)
Brocklebank, C. E. R.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Balniel, Lord
Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Baxter, A. Beverley
Brown, Brig.-G[...]n. H. C.(Newbury)


Albery, Sir I. J.
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Bull, B. B.


Alexander, Brig.-Gen. Sir W.
Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury)
Bullock, Capt. M.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)
Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Campbell, Sir E.T.


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Bird, Sir R. B.
Cartland, J. R. H.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Blair, Sir R.
Carver, Major W. H.


Apsley, Lord
Blindell, Sir J.
Cary, R. A.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Boothby, R. J. G.
Castlereagh, Viscount


Astor, Major Hon. J. J. (Dover)
Bossom, A. C.
Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vanslttart
Cazalet. Thelma(Islington, E.)


Atholl, Duchess of
Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Cazalet, Capt V. A. (Chippenham)


Baldwin-Webb, Col J.
Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (Br.W.)


Balfour, G. (Hampstead)
Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)




Channon, H.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Pilkington, R


Clarke, F. E.
Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)
Radford, E. A.


Colfox, Major W. P.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Raikes, H. V. A. M.


Colman, N. C. D.
Herbert, Capt. Sir S. (Abbey)
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.


Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.
Ramsbotham, H.


Cook, T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Ho[...]mes, J. S.
Ramsden, Sir E.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Rankin, R.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff(W'st'r S.G'gs)
Hopkinson, A.
Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Howitt, Dr. A. B.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Craddock, Sir R. H.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)


Cranborne, Viscount
Hudson, R. S. (Southport)
Remer, J. R.


Craven-Ellis, W.
Hulbert, N. J.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Hume, Sir G. H.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Crooke, J. S.
Hunter, T.
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (L'derry)


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Hurd, Sir P. A.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Inskip, Rt. Hon Sir T. W. H.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.


Cross, R. H.
James, Wing-Commander A. W.
Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)


Crowder, J. F. E.
Joel, D. J. B.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Culverwell, C. T.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)
Salmon, Sir I.


Davidson, Rt. Hon. Sir J. C. C.
Jones, L. (Swansea, W.)
Samuel, Sir A. M. (Farnham)


Davies, C. (Montgomery)
Keeling, E. H.
Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney)


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Davison, Sir W. H.
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Sandys, E. D.


De Chair, S. S.
Kimball, L.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Kirkpatrick, W. M.
Scott, Lord William


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Selley, H. R.


Dixon, Capt. Rt. Hon. H.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.
Latham, Sir P.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Dower, Capt. A. V. G.
Leckie, J. A.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Drewe, C.
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Duckworth, G. A. V. (Salop)
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U. B'If'st)


Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Liddall, W. S.
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.


Dugdale, Major T. L.
Lindsay, K. M.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Duggan, H. J.
Little, Sir
E. Graham-Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Duncan, J. A. L.
L[...]ewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Dunglass, Lord
Lloyd, G. W.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Dunne, P. R. R.
Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, E.)


Eastwood, J. F.
Loftus, P. C.
Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.


Eckersley, P. T.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Spender-Clay, Lt.-Cl. Rt. Hn. H. H.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Spens, W. P.


Elliston, G. S.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Emery, J. F.
McCorquodale, M. S.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)


Emmott, C. E. G. C.
MacDonald, Rt. Hn. J. R. (Scot. U.)
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)
Storey, S.


Erskine Hill, A. G.
MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Everard, W. L.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Findlay, Sir E.
McKie, J. H.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Fleming, E. L.
Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Magnay, T.
Sutcliffe, H.


Fraser, Capt. Sir I.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Markham, S. F.
Tate, Mavis C.


Furness, S. N.
Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Fyfe, D. P. M.
Maxwell, S. A.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Ganzoni, Sir J.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.
Mellor, Sir J. S.
P. (Tamworth) Titchfield, Marquess of


Goldie, N. B.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Touche, G. C.


Goodman, Col. A. W.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Gower, Sir R. V.
Mitcheson, Sir G. G.
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Moore, Lieut.-Col. T. C. R.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Com. R. L.


Granville, E. L.
Moore-Brabazon, Lt.-Col. J. T. C.
Turton, R. H.


Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Moreing, A. C.
Wakefield, W. W.


Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.
Morris, J. P. (Salford. N.)
Ward, Irene (Wallsend)


Gridley, Sir A. B.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.


Grigg, Sir E. W. M.
Morrison, W. S. (Cirencester)
Warrender, Sir V.


Grimston, R. V.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Drake)
Munro, P.
Wayland, Sir W. A.


Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)
Neven-Spence, Maj. B. H.
Wells, S. R.


Guest, Maj. Hon. O.(C'mb'rw'll, N.W.)
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Guinness, T. L. E. B.
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Gunston, Capt. D. W.
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Hacking, Rt. Hon. D. H.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Hanbury, Sir C.
Palmer, G. E. H.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Hannah, I. C.
Patrick, C. M.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Peat, C. U.
Wise, A. R.


Harbord, A.
Penny, Sir G.



Hartington,
Marquess of Percy, Rt. Hon. Lord E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES—


Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Perkins, W. R. D.
Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert


Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Petherick, M.
Ward and Dr. Morris-Jones.

Orders of the Day — CATTLE INDUSTRY (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) (No. 2) ACT, 1935.

11.7 p.m.

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: I beg to move,
That the Cattle Industry (Emergency Provisions) (Extension of Period) Order, 1936, dated the fifteenth day of June, nineteen hundred and thirty-six, made under section one of the Cattle Industry (Emergency Provisions) (No. 2) Act, 1935, by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries and the Secretaries of State concerned with agriculture in Scotland and Northern Ireland, respectively, a copy of which was presented to this House on the seventeenth day of June, nineteen hundred and thirty-six, be approved.
The effect of this Order is to extend the payment of subsidy to cattle producers in the United Kingdom for a further four months from to-morrow, 30th June, until 31st October. A very narrow point is involved, namely, whether the contingency foreseen by this House last summer, at the time when the Cattle Industry (No. 2) Act was passed, in which provision was made in certain circumstances for a further extension of four months, has arisen; and, in order to assist the House in coming to a conclusion on this point, I will very briefly recapitulate the history of the matter.
In 1934, on account of the very serious position in which the cattle industry found itself, Parliament decided that the best way of dealing with the matter was by the methods contained in the Act of 1934, pending the introduction of a scheme which would involve either modification by agreement of the existing treaties by which we were bound, or waiting until this country was free from the obligations of those treaties. The Act of 1934 came into operation on 1st September, 1934, and came to an end at the end of that financial year, on 31st March, 1935. As the House will recollect, it provided for a subsidy of 5s. per live cwt. in respect of fat cattle, and 9s. 4d. in respect of carcases, sold in the United Kingdom. The arrangements made by the Cattle Committee at that time have worked extraordinarily well since, and very few amendments, and these of a minor character, have been necessary. Up to the end of last May, £6,500,000 had been paid to producers for 2,750,000 beasts. That is about £3,750,000 per annum.
Early in 1935 there were negotiations with the oversea countries which were somewhat long and protracted. In March

the first extending Act was passed with the object of extending the period by three months, April, May, and June, with a further extension to include July, August, and September, subject to the specific authority of Parliament. In June, 1935, authority for that extension was obtained. In July it was recognised that the House might not be sitting on 1st October, and the House passed a further Act to prolong the period to 30th June, 1936, with an extension of four months to 31st October, provided it was confirmed by Parliament. That is the extension that we are discussing to-night. The procedure of extensions was adopted because it was rightly considered that Parliament should keep these provisions closely under review. I shall have no difficulty in showing that the further extensions that have been made have been amply justified.
Take first prices. The average prices for first and second quality fat cattle in
September, 1934, were 36s. 8d. per cwt. In September, 1935, that price had fallen to 33s. 2d. Last May it had recovered to 36s. 6d., which is about the same figure as was in force when the subsidy first operated under the first Act. The prices for the week ending 10th June this year were higher—39s. 9d. June is the peak period, and prices normally decline until November. In fact the decline has already set in. For first and second quality cattle average prices for the week ending 24th June have decreased to 37s. 4d., there again about the same as the price which obtained when the first Act was passed. But although the 1936 prices are higher than 1935, and 1935 prices were, I believe, the lowest ever, they are still lower than in the early months of 1934 when the Government first made up its mind that it was necessary to assist the industry in this way.
Prices for store, I am glad to say, are better. Breeders of stores have for some time been receiving a considerable proportion of the benefit of the subsidy. I believe the Cattle Committee estimate the proportion at about 50 per cent. This is despite the increase in 1935 as compared with 1934 of 38 per cent. in imports of stores from the Irish Free State under the Coal-Cattle Agreement and a further increase during the first five months of 1936. The second illustration I would give is home production. In the winter months of 1934–35 the increase


of fat cattle in England and Wales was 22 per cent. over the year 1933–34. Part of that increase, no doubt, is due to the diversion of sales through markets in order to secure certification, but even so there is no doubt that our home supplies of beef in 1934–35 show an increase over the previous year. During the winter of 1935–36 some 11 per cent. more animals were certified for subsidy in the United Kingdom as compared with the previous winter when, of course, similar conditions as to certification at markets obtained. But it should be remembered that it takes three years to produce beef. The increase in home supplies in 1934–35 and the winter of 1935–36 has not, therefore, been called out by the subsidy.
I am very well aware that the House is anxious to know what progress is being made in the discussions between ourselves and the Dominions and the Argentine in connection with this business. At this moment I can only say that those negotiations and discussions are very actively proceeding. It is common ground that all parties desire agreement as early as possible. The House cannot expect me at this moment to foreshadow the terms, but my right hon. Friend has every hope that he will be able to inform the House of the main features of the matter in, say, about a fortnight's time.

Mr. BOOTHBY: Does my hon. Friend mean that his right hon. Friend will be able to inform us of the terms of these trade agreements?

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: I must repeat what I said, that he would be able to inform the House of the main features in about a fortnight's time.
In conclusion, may I remind the House that the proposal we are now considering is not one of principle? It is not a proposal whether there should be a subsidy or not, but it is simply whether the contingency which Parliament foresaw in the summer of 1935, when the second Cattle Subsidy Act of that year was passed, has arisen. The contingency is that the cattle producers still need help on 30th June, 1936. That is the contingency Parliament foresaw. It also foresaw that the negotiations to which I have referred might not be complete. This depends, as the House knows very well, on the progress of discussions which are extremely diffi-

cult, very complicated and of necessity protracted. The contingency provided for by Parliament has now arisen. The appropriate Ministers, my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Secretary of State for the Home Department, representing Northern Ireland, have made an Order, in the form of a White Paper, dated 15th June. This Order is now before the House, and it is up to the House to approve it.

11.18 p.m.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: At this late hour, it would be extremely unwise on my part to attempt to launch an attack either on the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary because of their supreme optimism and hope. The right hon. Gentleman is the most hopeful Minister, and the hon. Gentleman the most hopeful Parliamentary Secretary we have ever had in this House. This is, I think, the fifth time within two years that an emergency Order has been introduced to subsidise cattle in this country. In July, 1934, the Government issued a White Paper as to their long-term policy. They produced an Order for a subsidy for a short period. They were hopeful at that time that their long-term policy would be announced very shortly. In March, 1935, they came for a further extension of the subsidy, an emergency proposal, and then in June, three months later, they came with another emergency proposal They were still hopeful that very soon their long-term policy might be announced. In March, 1935, they made a statement which amplified the original statement of 1934, in which they set out clearly some sort of an anticipated policy. In paragraph 19 of that Paper the right hon. Gentleman said:
In order that the Governments concerned"—
He was referring, apparently, to the Dominion Governments and the Government of the Argentine—
shall have a further opportunity of considering the immediate problem, His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom have proposed to Parliament a continuation of the present Exchequer subsidy for a further short period.
That was in March, 1935. They came in June, 1935, for a further extension and again in July, 1935. Now in June, 1936, they come for a still further extension which, as in 1934, they call an emergency Order. On 20th June of last year, Mr.


J. H. Thomas, then Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs, said that he had hoped it would be possible to announce that day an agreement. In June, 1936, the Government are still hopeful of getting an agreement. On 26th June of last year, the Minister said that it was time to say that they had now got down to realities, and that he could re-echo the sentiments of the Secretary of State for the Dominions that they were not without hope of reaching a settlement. That was exactly a year last Thursday. Now, the Parliamentary Secretary still hopes.
They have had so many agreements in other directions that they cannot get an agreement here. There is the Ottawa Agreement and the Argentine Agreement. There are agreements to the right and left of them, and they cannot get an agreement now. There is no way out but to continue with an emergency Order for £1,500,000 for three months. As far as the House is concerned, we know no more of the long-term policy in June, 1936, than we knew in June, 1934. Now that over £7,000,000 have been expended in this direction, it is time that the Government made up their mind on their long-term policy. It may be that as a result of the Ottawa Agreement, and the failure of the Dominions to accept the idea of a levy, or the Argentine Agreement standing in the way of a levy before next November, it is difficult to obtain agreement now. On these benches we said that an agreement could have been reached on a long-term policy without waiting for the application of a levy, to be imposed upon imported poor quality meat consumed by the poorer section of the community so that the consumer of high-class quality meat might be subsidised at the expense of the poor.
I shall vote against this subsidy to-night, not because I feel that the producers of beef in this country are not entitled in existing circumstances to some relief, but because I feel that the long delay on the part of the Government to obtain a real and lasting agreement has tended completely to upset the balance of agriculture in this country. If I had to choose between a direct subsidy from the Treasury or the imposition of a levy upon imported low-grade quality meat or chilled meat I should certainly plump for a direct Treasury subsidy, so that those who consume the highest quality meat, and pay less than an economic price for it, should have to meet the deficit through

their Income Tax, instead of the proposal of the Government to make a levy on frozen and chilled meat which is consumed by the poorer sections of the community so that the better-grade qualities can be consumed by the other section of the community at an uneconomic price. From that point of view I would support a direct subsidy rather than a levy. It is not because we are not as anxious as the Minister himself to help any section of the agricultural community but because the Government have been toying with the House in regard to their long-term policy, to which we are utterly opposed, and we feel we must oppose the Motion. Recently we have been discussing leakages. In this case the Prime Minister seems to have intervened in agricultural matters, and we are informed, surreptitiously, that he has communicated with the National Farmers' Union and informed them of the Government's long-term policy.

Major DORMAN-SMITH: That report came out in the "Daily Herald" and it is entirely incorrect and untrue.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I am glad to hear the hon. and gallant Member's correction, but I have read a report this morning, not in the "Daily Herald" but in a newspaper which supports the farmers and is generally recognised to be a Conservative newspaper, that the policy of subsidies is now being discussed in the various branches of the National Farmers' Union. If that is not correct there is no more to be said.

Major DORMAN-SMITH: The whole complaint of the National Farmers' Union is that they can get nothing out of the Prime Minister.

Mr. WILLIAMS: That is not peculiar to the National Farmers' Union. If, as the Parliamentary Secretary has suggested, we are to discuss this question in the middle of July, we should know something about it now. We shall have something to say about marketing schemes. The Minister has tended to discourage marketing schemes until the long-term policy is available. We shall also want to know what the Government are doing about applying the recommendations of the Commission which considered the question of the slaughter of animals.


We shall want to know something about what the Government are doing with regard to the report and recommendations of the Hopkins Committee, which considered the question of cattle diseases. We shall want to know how the Government are trying to turn the balance in regard to the over-production of milk, according to existing liquid sales, and we shall also want to know something about beef production. There will be many questions which we shall put when the appropriate time comes. At this moment it is sufficient to say that for two years we have been hearing about temporary policies, temporary palliatives, emergency measures all needing money from the Treasury. The money may be justified, but we ought to know much more about the intentions and purposes of the Government with regard to their long-term policy. Unless we hear all about it, I, at all events, shall feel justified in voting against the subsidy to-night.

11.32 p.m.

Sir F. ACLAND: I would like to ask a question on a point which the Parliamentary Secretary did not make clear. As I understand, the subsidy which we are asked to extend now will expire on 30th October, which normally falls in the Recess. Therefore, is it not a fact that if the Government wish to extend the subsidy into the autumn session, they will have to bring in a Bill during the next month? Is that so? If it is, if the Government will have to produce fresh legislation or at any rate a fresh scheme of some kind during the next month in order to carry on after 30th October, it seems to me that we might postpone the discussion until that time—when surely we shall have further details—and not bother about the short extension now. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Is this matter of necessity to be before the House between now and the Summer Recess or not?

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: The answer to that question depends upon the statement which my right hon. Friend will make in a short time.

11.33 p.m.

Mr. BOOTHBY: I rise for a few moments to say that, while I agree with a good deal of what he said, I do not think in the attitude he took towards the

vote to-night the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) was logical. He admits on behalf of his party that there is a real and urgent necessity at this moment for giving assistance to the agricultural industry, and yet he says that he will not vote for that assistance because the Government have not produced what he calls their long-term policy.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Perhaps in trying to shorten my remarks, I did not make my point clear. What I intended to imply was that we are unwilling to grant millions of pounds unconditionally to any branch of the agricultural or any other industry. So far as I know, these subsidies have been unconditional.

Mr. BOOTHBY: When the hon. Gentleman puts that point, I am bound to say that I find myself to some extent in agreement with him. I think that a moment will come, perhaps in the year 1940 or 1941, when this House will get a bit fed up with passing temporary emergency subsidies for the purpose of subsidising the cattle trade in this country. I think we are agreed on all sides of the House that it is very necessary that the production of beef in this country should be fostered and encouraged and that some special assistance is necessary for the beef producers. That applies particularly at a moment when, perhaps more than at any other time, it is necessary to safeguard in the future the food supplies of this country. I feel it necessary that we should bring pressure on the Government, from all sides, to produce a long-term policy. There is a danger that the agricultural policy of the Government may become something of a farce if things go on in the present "hand-to-mouth" fashion. Scotland has been waiting for six years for some policy with regard to oats. We are still told that the matter is under the most intensive consideration. Similarly, with regard to the milk scheme—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain Bourne): I think it would be better to keep to the subject matter of the Order.

Mr. BOOTHBY: I was about to say that I think the cattle industry is the most glaring example. Year in and year out we have been waiting for a clear statement on long-term policy, with regard to what many of us regard as the most vital aspect of British agriculture


at present. I would, again, support, in some measure—although I do not go all the way with him—the hon. Member for Don Valley on the question of a marketing scheme for beef. The Minister gave a specific pledge to the House that he would impose a system of orderly marketing of beef on the agricultural industry. Yet when some of my hon. Friends and I, about six months ago, put questions on the subject, my right hon. Friend said he had not the slightest intention of imposing any scheme for the revision of marketing of beef upon the industry, unless there was complete agreement in favour of it. It is desirable to get the support and co-operation of the industry in devising a marketing scheme, but I doubt whether the Government have sought to obtain the co-operation, even of the farmers' unions of England and Scotland in devising an efficient scheme of beef marketing. I think the House feels that the time is rapidly approaching when we must be satisfied with regard to the Government's long-term policy as far as beef is concerned.
I wish to ask a specific question. The Parliamentary Secretary said that within a fortnight's time the House would be put in possession of certain relevant facts regarding what he described as "this matter." Does that mean that the Minister will be able to give specific information regarding the progress of negotiations for the revision of the Ottawa Agreements or of the negotiations with regard to the Argentine? I think that is probably the root of the whole matter and many hon. Members would be thankful, I am sure, if they could receive some assurance that this question will be cleared out of the way before we rise for the Summer Recess.

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: My right hon. Friend expects to be able to give that specific information to which my hon. Friend refers.

Mr. BARNES: Will it be submitted to the House in a form which will enable us to discuss the question in its wider aspects?

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: The information will be in the form of a statement and a statement of such importance will, clearly, have to be debated.

11.39 p.m.

Sir R. W. SMITH: I know the House is anxious that this Debate should be brought to an end, but this is a matter of vital importance to many parts of the country, and we are told by the Government that the Order deals with the most important branch of the agricultural industry. I feel, therefore, as the representative of a constituency in North East Scotland, that some expression should be given here to the deep disappointment of the agriculturists in that part of the country that no definite long-term policy has yet been submitted to the House. I would remind the Government of their statement in the White Paper to the following effect:
Failing agreement on the payment of a levy on meat imports His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom will have no alternative but to take steps to regulate, during the currency of existing agreements, the quantity of imports to whatever extent is necessary to restore livestock prices to a remunerative level.
These prices have not been restored yet to a remunerative level, and the livestock industry is somewhat disappointed with what the Government have done to help them. We are now asked to give an extension of four months to this subsidy, and we would rather have half a loaf than no bread at all, but it seems to me that something more than a 5s. subsidy ought to be realised as necessary for the industry. It has not brought the price of meat up to a paying level, and surely we might have a 10s. subsidy, so that the farmers would not have to carry on at a loss for another four months, because that is what we shall have to do with only 5s. I know there are difficulties, but I would again remind the Minister that the position of the industry is very serious. I would like very much to know whether, as a result of the negotiations which are taking place at the present time, the Government contemplate any modification of the White Paper scheme which was laid down last year.

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: In answer to my hon. Friend, I would say that it would be altogether premature for me to make a statement at the present time.

Sir R. W. SMITH: Then may I press on the Government that if there is in contemplation a modification of their


White Paper scheme, they will have a very hard time in front of them?

11.43 p.m.

Mr. HENDERSON STEWART: I will not detain the House for long, but I have to put a point which to all of us who are interested in this matter is of very substantial importance. It is with regard to the form which this subsidy should take. My hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby), with whom I am glad to find myself in complete agreement for once, raised the question of marketing, as did the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams). There are many matters that are related to this question of meat which you, Sir, very rightly, ruled out of order to-night but which we would like to debate on some subsequent occasion, and possibly in a fortnight's time. The ques-

tion of marketing is only one question; the relations of meat to other agricultural produce is another. I would ask very seriously that the resolution, or statement, or whatever it may be should not be so confined as to prevent our discussing in its widest form the whole future of agriculture in this country.

Question put,
That the Cattle Industry (Emergency Provisions) (Extension of Period) Order, 1936, dated the fifteenth day of June, nineteen hundred and thirty-six, made under section one of the Cattle Industry (Emergency Provisions) (No. 2) Act, 1935, by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries and the Secretaries of State concerned with agriculture in Scotland and Northern Ireland, respectively, a copy of which was presented to this House on the seventeenth day of June, nineteen hundred and thirty-six, be approved.

The House divided: Ayes, 177; Noes, 74.

Division No. 258.]
AYES.
[11.45 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Duncan, J. A. L.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Dunglass, Lord
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)
Eastwood, J. F.
McKie, J. H.


Anderson Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Eckersley, P. T.
Magnay, T.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Margesson. Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Apsley, Lord
Elliston, G. S.
Markham, S. F.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Emery, J. F.
Maxwell, S. A.


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Erskine Hill, A. G.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.


Atholl, Duchess of
Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Fleming, E. L.
Mitcheson, Sir G. G.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Moore, Lieut.-Col. T. C. R.


Baxter, A. Beverley
Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Furness, S. N.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)


Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury)
Fyfe, D. P. M.
Morrison, W. S. (Cirencester)


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.


Blindell, Sir J.
Goodman, Col. A. W.
Munro, P.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Gower, Sir R. V.
Neven-Spence. Maj. B. H. H.


Bossom, A. C.
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Palmer, G. E. H.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Grimston, R. V.
Patrick, C. M.


Bull, B. B.
Gunston, Capt. D. W.
Penny, Sir G.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Hanbury, Sir C.
Perkins, W. R. D.


Cartland, J. R. H.
Hannah, I. C.
Petherick, M.


Carver, Major W. H.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Radford, F. A.


Cary, R. A.
Harbord, A. Ramsbotham,
H.


Castlereagh, Viscount
Hartington, Marquess of
Rankin, R.


Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Channon, H.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Remer, J. R.


Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Holmes, J. S.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Cook, T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Hopkin, D.
Robinson. J. R. (Blackpool)


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Hulbert, N. J.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Craven-Ellis, W.
Hunter, T.
Ross, Major Sir R. D (L'derry)


Crooke, J. S.
Jones, L. (Swansea, W.)
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Keeling, E. H.
Rothschild, J. A. de


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Un[...].)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.


Cruddas, Col. B.
Kimball, L.
Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney)


Culverwell, C. T.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Scott, Lord William


Davies, C. (Montgomery)
Latham, Sir P.
Selley, H. R.


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Leckie, J. A.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


De Chair, S. S.
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Dixon, Capt. Rt. Hon. H.
Liddall, W. S.
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U. B'lf'st),


Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.
Lindsay, K. M.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Dower, Capt. A. V. G.
Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Duckworth, G. A. V. (Salop)
Lloyd, G. W.
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, E.)


Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Loftus, P. C.
Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.


Dugdale, Major T. L.
Lyons, A. M.
Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.


Duggan, H. J.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Spens, W. P.




Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)
Tufnell, Lieut.-Com. R. L.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Strickland, Captain W. F.
Turton, R. H.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.
Wakefield, W. W.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Sutcliffe, H.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Tate, Mavis C.
Ward, Irene (Wallsend)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)
Warrender, Sir V.
Wise, A. R.


Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)
Waterhouse, Captain C.



Titchfield, Marquess of
Wayland, Sir W. A.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES—


Tree, A. R. L. F.
Wells, S. R.
Mr. James Stuart and Captain




Arthur Hope.




NOES.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Paling, W.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Adamson, W. M.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Potts, J.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Harris, Sir P. A.
Pritt, D. N.


Ammon, C. G.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Riley, B.


Banfield, J. W.
Holdsworth, H.
Ritson, J.


Barnes, A. J.
Hollins, A.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Bellenger, F.
Jagger, J.
Rowson, G.


Benson, G.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Seely, Sir H. M.


Broad, F. A.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Sexton, T. M.


Bromfield, W.
John, W.
Smith, Ben (Ratherhithe)


Brooke, W.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Cape, T.
Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Casselis, T.
Kelly, W. T.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Kirby, B. V.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Daggar, G.
Lathan, G.
Tinker, J. J.


Dobbie, W.
Logan, D. G.
Watson, W. McL.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Lunn, W.
Welsh, J. C.


Ede, J. C.
Maclean, N.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Frankel, D.
Marklew, E.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Gardner, B. W.
Messer, F.



Garro Jones, G. M.
Milner, Major J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Grenfell, D. R
Moreing, A. C.
Mr. Mathers and Mr. Whiteley.


Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Ha'kn'y, S.)

Orders of the Day — CROWN LANDS (RECOMMITTED) BILL.

Considered in Committee.

[Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

Clauses 1 to 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

A new Clause stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Lieut.-Colonel MOORE:

(Leases of Crown land in Regent Street and Langham Place.)

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: I only wish to call attention to the Crown property in Regent Street—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. and gallant Member wish to move his new Clause?

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: If it is the general wish of the Committee that this should not be moved, I will not do so. It is my wish that the Bill as a whole should pass, but had my Clause been called I should have drawn attention to the situation in Regent Street. In order not to delay the proceedings I shall not raise that matter now.
Schedules agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Bill reported, without Amendment. 
Motion made,
That the Bill be now read the Third time."—(King's Consent signified.)
Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

Mr. KELLY: rose—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain Bourne): If the hon. Member takes objection to the Third Reading, it cannot be taken now.

Mr. KELLY: I do.

11.56 p.m.

Mr. ELLIOT: May I beg the hon. Member not to press his objection? This Bill will enable a lot of building to be undertaken and that will mean employment.

Mr. KELLY: I know all about that. That is a question I wish to go into. My action is keeping nobody out of employment at the moment.

Mr. ELLIOT: I do not wish to press the hon. Member unduly, but I would


remind him that this concerns the question of finding accommodation for a number of civil servants and servants of the Crown, and it is a Measure which will enable a deal of employment to be given.

11.57 p.m.

Mr. KELLY: I did not say a word on the Committee stage, though I did wish to refer to one or two of the Clauses. My action is not preventing the demolition of Montagu House or the houses in Richmond Terrace. I think we need a little more explanation before this Measure passes through the House at this late hour of the night.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member persist in his objection?

Mr. KELLY: Yes, I do.

It being after Eleven of the Clock, and objection being taken to further Proceeding, the Debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed To-morrow.

GREENWICH HOSPITAL AND TRAVERS' FOUNDATION.

Resolved,
That the Statement of the Estimated Income and Expenditure of Greenwich Hospital and of Travers' Foundation for the year 1936, a copy of which was presented to this House on the twenty-ninth day of April, 1936, be approved."—[Mr. Lindsay.]

POST OFFICE (ARDROSSAN BRODICK MAIL CONTRACT).

Resolved,
That the Contract, dated the nineteenth day of June, nineteen hundred and thirty-six, between the London Midland and Scottish Railway Company and His Majesty's Postmaster-General respecting a new service for the conveyance of mails

between Ardrossan and the Isle of Arran, a copy of which was presented to this House on the twenty-fourth day of June, nineteen hundred and thirty-six, be approved."—[Mr. W. S. Morrison.]

POST OFFICE (SITES) BILL [Lords].

Mr. Channon, Sir Edmund Findlay, Mr. Viant, and Mr. Graham White nominated Members of the Select Committee on the Post Office (Sites) Bill [Lords].—[Sir G. Penny.]

MEASUREMENT OF GAS.

Ordered,
That the Lords Message [26th June], That they have ordered Sir Charles Boys to attend in order to his being examined as a witness before the Joint Committee on the Measurement of Gas, be now considered."—[Sir G. Penny.]

Lords Message considered accordingly.

Resolved,
That this House doth concur with the Lords therein."—[Sir G. Penny.]

Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

SOLICITORS BILL [Lords].

As amended (in the Standing Committee) considered; read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after half-past Eleven of the Clock, upon Monday evening, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at One Minute after Twelve o'Clock.